• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

The Official American Election 2008 Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kyogre35

First avy..no touchy
Some do, some don't. But just because state also charge tax on gas doesn't make it too high, nor does it make it a bad tax. Again, that money (I don't know for California, but I'm pretty sure) go to roads infrastructure and related stuff.

Also, why is it higher:

California has a very high cost of living. Missouri has a much lower one.

But why are they so high when the Price for a Barrel of Oil is 50% lower. But the price for a gallon of gas is 30% lower?? It might just be the oil companies but then is it just because there greedy?

BTW here are the taxes on the Gas in all the States...
http://www.californiagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx
..I'd say that's a bit higher than 18.4%.


randomspot555 said:
"Cut spending" is a vague answer. It makes sense that motorists pay a portion of road infrastructure. Hence, tax gasoline.

"Isn't important" is debatable, and also vague.

Well you want a specific answer?? There was one Gov. Program that was used to inspect Grizzley bears in the northern part of the country. You know how much it cost? 3 Million dollars. Those kinds of programs should be cut and the ones that are vital especially in this time should be kept. There is no need to know what the mating patterns of Grizzly Bears are when there is a Finacial Crisis.


randomspot555 said:
He must've mispoke or misunderstood business. There are a million different ways to file for a small business owner and a million different ways to get taxed. However, since the vast majority of small business owners don't make $250,000 and instead, pour it back into the business..he'd either be doing REALLY, REALLY well (and thus, that's what happens when you succeed, you move to a higher tax bracket) or his accountant ripped him off.

But wouldn't you say his small business is small?? And who cares if he's barely in the bracket, the gov. shouldn't take ANYONES money even if there greedy. And isn't that what the American dream is? To do REALLY REALLY WELL?? So why should we penilize him and all the others who just made it over the "Bracket"



randomspot555 said:
Just because you like it doesn't make it sound fact. Sorry. "Because I said so" is a pretty crappy argument. Rather, you should measure supply side on ADVOCATES of supply side, like Bush, Bush SR, and Reagan, not someone who DIDN'T operate under it.

But what else would the employers do? I'm looking for that answer alone.


randomspot555 said:
JOE THE PLUMBER IS A PURELY HYPOTHETICAL SITUTATION AND HE DOESN'T OWN THE BUSINESS.

Acually that's not the issue. It's to were BArack would penilize someone for working there tail off. Is there any inccentive to get a better life in this country if they tax you for your wealth alone???


randomspot555 said:
And he isn't being taxed as rich.

Not now but like I said before what is Bob came and bought a small business and it had 3 stores and Bob still can only afford a 18,000 sq ft. home. But Obama thinks he's rich?? Why? If that thresh hold was 500,000 then I wouldn't have as much a problem...but 250,000 is way to low for my stomach to digest. Basically BArack is saying.

"If you work your tail off to get a better life I'm going to penilize you for doing so"

That's basicallly it.


randomspot555 said:
College costs soar every year. It's really not feasible to save up that amount of money without some great investing skills/luck.

Community colleges are a good resource, but they aren't a replacement for a 4 year university. To start a college career or earn your GED, they're perfectly suitable for, but can't really advance beyond that. Even some 4 year degrees. But for the most part, they're limited in resources and, no matter how hard the administration tries to make it, it's not a replacement for a 4 year university.

Agian it's hard for me to know stuff because I'm not even close...but they might have to help out here...but If the student can work there butt of they could get a scholorship. And I know it's not going to pay for everything but It will pay for some. Again IDK about college seeing I'm not close.

ghost anime said:
i'll have to agree with the conservatives when it comes to handling taxes in the very least. i'm voting republican for governor of this state soon and quite frankly, i see why taxes are such a big deal to them. the democratic opponent is simply throwing more money at our problems with horrible solutions that will essentially get us nowhere new.

however i'm much more skeptical of voting republicans federally... though i agree with the logic you have BigLutz, i'd just personally like to know when it has actually succeeded *noticeably*. i'm not really a believer of trickle-down economics just yet. ive seen so much going against it for so long.

So what are the Democrat's going to do? Put more money into it? Where's the money? Tax the rich? But they'll just MOVE overseas. So IDK where Democrat's will get the money to help the economy. Other than tax everyone. And then spend more.
 

randomspot555

Well-Known Member
But why are they so high when the Price for a Barrel of Oil is 50% lower. But the price for a gallon of gas is 30% lower?? It might just be the oil companies but then is it just because there greedy?

BTW here are the taxes on the Gas in all the States...
http://www.californiagasprices.com/tax_info.aspx
..I'd say that's a bit higher than 18.4

I meant to say 18.4 cents per gallon, not percent.

It's not high. The logical way to tax for road infrastructure is to tax those who utilize them the most. Hence, tax gasoline. Also, California has a lot of roads to pay for, as well as an extremely high cost of living that makes everything more expensive.

The cost of road infrastructure does not fluctuate with the price of gas. Cement doesn't shoot up and down like gas does.

Also, the price of gas is very deceitful. In the summer, they add additional chemicals to make it cleaner. The reasoning behind it is because more people drive in the summer, and they drive more often. They remove these in the winter because less people are driving less often.

And again, you haven't answered the question. How else do you think roads and highway infrastructure, which even the most libertarian folk agree that government should provide, be payed for? "Cut something else" isn't an answer. Or do you agree that taxing gasoline makes a lot of logical sense, since motorists need gasoline to operate vehicles, and motorists use the roads the most?

Also, the federal gas tax hasn't gone up in a number of years. The government is NOT the problem when it comes to gasoline. They are not making the prices go up, and ignoring the gas taxes won't make the price of gas go down. In my state of Indiana, it'd lower it by...a quarter for every gallon. I'd rather give up .25 cents so my income tax doesn't get an increase, or the general state sales tax, and so on.

Well you want a specific answer?? There was one Gov. Program that was used to inspect Grizzley bears in the northern part of the country. You know how much it cost? 3 Million dollars. Those kinds of programs should be cut and the ones that are vital especially in this time should be kept. There is no need to know what the mating patterns of Grizzly Bears are when there is a Finacial Crisis.

What government program?

I know what you're hinting at: pork barrel spending. But that isn't a good enough answer. Pork barrel spending is 17.9 billion of the most recent federal budget, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. For fiscal year 2008, just the budget for highways is 40.8 billion, (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/budget/fy2008/section1.htm) and it's even more if we take in the entire Department of Trasnportation.

But wouldn't you say his small business is small?? And who cares if he's barely in the bracket, the gov. shouldn't take ANYONES money even if there greedy. And isn't that what the American dream is? To do REALLY REALLY WELL?? So why should we penilize him and all the others who just made it over the "Bracket"

Yes. But with a successful business, you get taxed more, especially if your small business is no longer a small business.

But why should the rules be changed to fit 2% of small business owners, who actually break $250,000? They could do much better by staying out of this hypothetical bracket (remember, Obama isn't guaranteed to be elected, nor is his tax packages guaranteed to pass as-is) by investing back in their business, and then taking in even more money the following year

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf for more info on what is considered a small business, based upon millions of dollars and number of employees.

But what else would the employers do? I'm looking for that answer alone.

Answering "Prove that Supply-Side" works with another question doesn't help. Please back up your claim.


"If you work your tail off to get a better life I'm going to penilize you for doing so"

That's not it and you know it. It's no secret that businesses that make more money get taxed more. But in the case of a small business, the owner can just pour money back into the business. Problem solved! It can actually benefit them, since they can earn more money next year due to the investment.

After all, isn't that what supply-side advocates? Lower taxes for business owners means they can invest in and expand their business?

Agian it's hard for me to know stuff because I'm not even close...but they might have to help out here...but If the student can work there butt of they could get a scholorship. And I know it's not going to pay for everything but It will pay for some. Again IDK about college seeing I'm not close.

There are plenty of people that work hard that don't get scholarships. If you don't want to back up your claim of "it's simple, just work hard and it'll happen!", then you might want to consider not debating it.



[quoteSo what are the Democrat's going to do? Put more money into it? Where's the money? Tax the rich? But they'll just MOVE overseas. So IDK where Democrat's will get the money to help the economy. Other than tax everyone. And then spend more.[/QUOTE]

I'm challenging your idea. You don't prove your idea is right by proving someone else's is wrong.
 

Josiah

is your favorite
You do realize the top 5% of this country already pays 60% of taxes. Compared to only 37% in 1980. The majority of tax income already comes from the Rich! The more you take from then and eventually they will say Screw This.
I'm curious to know what percent of America's wealth is owned by that five%. Do you happen to know, or is there any way to know for sure? Because if they own 60% of the wealth, then I don't see how that's unfair.
 

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
Lots of quotes to reply to but in summary:


I agree the government should trim its spending. But it still needs money, you cannot deny that. And I don't understand why they shouldn't get their money from the people who have the greatest percentage of wealth in the country.

One of the biggest expenditures is the military, yet no one who supports McCain seems to object with that.

And BigLutz is making a fool of himself by denying that people who dodge taxes are breaking the law and should be prosecuted.
 

Kyogre35

First avy..no touchy
I meant to say 18.4 cents per gallon, not percent.

It's not high. The logical way to tax for road infrastructure is to tax those who utilize them the most. Hence, tax gasoline. Also, California has a lot of roads to pay for, as well as an extremely high cost of living that makes everything more expensive.

The cost of road infrastructure does not fluctuate with the price of gas. Cement doesn't shoot up and down like gas does.

Also, the price of gas is very deceitful. In the summer, they add additional chemicals to make it cleaner. The reasoning behind it is because more people drive in the summer, and they drive more often. They remove these in the winter because less people are driving less often.

And again, you haven't answered the question. How else do you think roads and highway infrastructure, which even the most libertarian folk agree that government should provide, be payed for? "Cut something else" isn't an answer. Or do you agree that taxing gasoline makes a lot of logical sense, since motorists need gasoline to operate vehicles, and motorists use the roads the most?

Also, the federal gas tax hasn't gone up in a number of years. The government is NOT the problem when it comes to gasoline. They are not making the prices go up, and ignoring the gas taxes won't make the price of gas go down. In my state of Indiana, it'd lower it by...a quarter for every gallon. I'd rather give up .25 cents so my income tax doesn't get an increase, or the general state sales tax, and so on.

I guess that's true...okay but this thing has nothing to do with the election though..and I say I guess your right, but Barack's raise in taxes on the families making over 250,000 is also hurting businesses in general. Here's a good arguement against Barack...http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html...so that's basically that. Atleast for me.



randomspot555 said:
What government program?

I know what you're hinting at: pork barrel spending. But that isn't a good enough answer. Pork barrel spending is 17.9 billion of the most recent federal budget, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. For fiscal year 2008, just the budget for highways is 40.8 billion, (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/budget/fy2008/section1.htm) and it's even more if we take in the entire Department of Trasnportation.

Yeah but doesn't it concern you that the amount of Earmarks went from 3,000 in 1996 to 13,000 in 2006?? So most of the 17.9 Bill. really shouldn't be spent, except for the things that are needed. ESCPECIALLY in this time of suffering? ANd the taxpayers should keep it no matter how little of the budget it is.



randomspot555 said:
Yes. But with a successful business, you get taxed more, especially if your small business is no longer a small business.

But why should the rules be changed to fit 2% of small business owners, who actually break $250,000? They could do much better by staying out of this hypothetical bracket (remember, Obama isn't guaranteed to be elected, nor is his tax packages guaranteed to pass as-is) by investing back in their business, and then taking in even more money the following year http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf for more info on what is considered a small business, based upon millions of dollars and number of employees.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11670.html Going back to the writing.

These links are basically what I believe but already written.


randomspot555 said:
Answering "Prove that Supply-Side" works with another question doesn't help. Please back up your claim.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/09/higher_taxes_would_lead_us_to.html another good article. So I think those taxes would affect that.

Here's an article on Corprate tax cuts...http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23699.html

Here's an article again on Icome Redistribution....http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/obamas_patriotic_tonic.html

And tax checks on Obama and his speech and taxes....http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html

There you go and go ahead and read them.

randomspot555 said:
That's not it and you know it. It's no secret that businesses that make more money get taxed more. But in the case of a small business, the owner can just pour money back into the business. Problem solved! It can actually benefit them, since they can earn more money next year due to the investment.

After all, isn't that what supply-side advocates? Lower taxes for business owners means they can invest in and expand their business?

Okay were do they get the money?? Really your paragraph makes no sense.



randomspot555 said:
There are plenty of people that work hard that don't get scholarships. If you don't want to back up your claim of "it's simple, just work hard and it'll happen!", then you might want to consider not debating it.

Okay then some people won't get a degree...

Here's a link about that...http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/college/2006-10-24-college-costs_x.htm.

And here's something...

Average Icome:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/4person.html (First column)

Average College tuition:
http://www.collegeboard.com/student/pay/add-it-up/4494.html (Also it says on the page there are 150 Billion dollars worth of Help to get people through college)

And Families should know that they should go to college and should be saving for it.

randomspor555 said:
I'm challenging your idea. You don't prove your idea is right by proving someone else's is wrong.

Okay so this whole post is on what I believe and so what do you think about it?

chuboy said:
Lots of quotes to reply to but in summary:


I agree the government should trim its spending. But it still needs money, you cannot deny that. And I don't understand why they shouldn't get their money from the people who have the greatest percentage of wealth in the country.

One of the biggest expenditures is the military, yet no one who supports McCain seems to object with that.

And BigLutz is making a fool of himself by denying that people who dodge taxes are breaking the law and should be prosecuted.

I agree 100% that that's a crime and they should be investigated. And so you want us to not spend money on the military? Oh okay then we just can't fight anyone? So I say spend the money on the VITAL infristuctures that keep America going. Yeah there are some things we need to still invest in. And yeah like I said you need to spend some but it's getting a little out of control.

derkins said:
I'm curious to know what percent of America's wealth is owned by that five%. Do you happen to know, or is there any way to know for sure? Because if they own 60% of the wealth, then I don't see how that's unfair.

Probably..IDK the excact Num. but it's a lot. It's the people that are Million and Billionairs. So they own a lot. And we should cut EVERYONE'S taxes.

*takes a deep breath* This is a lot for a 13 year old to handle...
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
I agree the government should trim its spending. But it still needs money, you cannot deny that. And I don't understand why they shouldn't get their money from the people who have the greatest percentage of wealth in the country.

Because the people who are paying the money already are already paying the greatest percentage of the tax as well as providing the greatest percentage of jobs in this country. Before the Government decides it wants to grab more money, three questions should be asked: Can it be paid for by trimming other less needed areas. B: Is it really needed. C: Does it have to be done by the Government.

One of the biggest expenditures is the military, yet no one who supports McCain seems to object with that.

Possibly because we are at a time of war, in which cutting back could be dangerous. This isn't the mid 90s with Clinton, we are in a time of war. Now you want to trim down Military Spending Bills. Give the President Line Item Veto. The only way Military Spending Bills are passed is by loading it down with a insane amount of pork to keep Anti War Democrats happy who do not care if Soldiers protect themselves with Kevlar or Egg Carts.

Give the President Line Item Veto and you cut down the price of Military Spending Bills by ALOT.

And BigLutz is making a fool of himself by denying that people who dodge taxes are breaking the law and should be prosecuted.

The only fool here is you as you show off your substantial lack of knowledge of not only my posts, but the US Tax System.

I never said the people shouldn't be prosecuted for dodging taxes under the tax laws now. But with the Rich paying over 60% of the Taxes, and the Government showing a horrible spending record and then coming back and asking for more. I would hold on to my wallet too, and I sympathize with them for that.

You know it's just a crazy idea, but how about the Government showing that they can actually spend wisely before going back and asking for more.
 

The_Panda

恭喜發財
Kyogre35 said:
Well you want a specific answer?? There was one Gov. Program that was used to inspect Grizzley bears in the northern part of the country. You know how much it cost? 3 Million dollars. Those kinds of programs should be cut and the ones that are vital especially in this time should be kept. There is no need to know what the mating patterns of Grizzly Bears are when there is a Finacial Crisis.

You see this is what I think is the biggest casualty in the 21st century: science. For some reason governments worldwide think that scientific endeavor either isn't worth it or just a place to steal funding from. I personally disagree with the way scientific funding is allocated in the United States, but nevertheless I fear that the budget cutting measures will be to the detriment of something as critical as research. Even your grizzly bears example could shed amazing insight into the species, help it be protected and kept for the next generation and give humans more knowledge as to how to plan settlements and manage parks in the northern part of the country. It's not just that, I'm sure other endeavors seen as useless especially in biology (where such "useless" programmes are common) or physics (where much funding goes towards either experiments with no direct application or educational and research facilities like observatories) will be cut as well. Knowledge is very important... I don't see how it ISN'T vital even in a financial crisis. I've already seen medical ethics and integrity butchered by the far right, I don't want to see science and scientific method follow. Government funding for scientific institutions and programmes is essential where such programmes are not profitable (like the grizzly bear mating patterns) and also to keep the integrity and independence of public research.

If you want more funding, get rid of those ridiculous subsidies, restructure the pointless 'public' health system, restructure education and don't go ahead with the bailout plan. But whatever happens scientific and medical integrity should not suffer because of the irresponsible actions of government.
 

Kyogre35

First avy..no touchy
You see this is what I think is the biggest casualty in the 21st century: science. For some reason governments worldwide think that scientific endeavor either isn't worth it or just a place to steal funding from. I personally disagree with the way scientific funding is allocated in the United States, but nevertheless I fear that the budget cutting measures will be to the detriment of something as critical as research. Even your grizzly bears example could shed amazing insight into the species, help it be protected and kept for the next generation and give humans more knowledge as to how to plan settlements and manage parks in the northern part of the country. It's not just that, I'm sure other endeavors seen as useless especially in biology (where such "useless" programmes are common) or physics (where much funding goes towards either experiments with no direct application or educational and research facilities like observatories) will be cut as well. Knowledge is very important... I don't see how it ISN'T vital even in a financial crisis. I've already seen medical ethics and integrity butchered by the far right, I don't want to see science and scientific method follow. Government funding for scientific institutions and programmes is essential where such programmes are not profitable (like the grizzly bear mating patterns) and also to keep the integrity and independence of public research.

If you want more funding, get rid of those ridiculous subsidies, restructure the pointless 'public' health system, restructure education and don't go ahead with the bailout plan. But whatever happens scientific and medical integrity should not suffer because of the irresponsible actions of government.

First off nice to see the thread maker around.

Second I know that we need research but right now isn't the time. After were atleast stable then we can input into programs and such. But with the stock market crazy and the housing market just as. We don't need to know much about the grizzly Bears.

But we can still keep money into it...just not as much..And all the things you said to get more money are definatly will help. Definatly and I support all of them. But, basically we just need to take a little out to deal with this. And then when the stock market and the housing sectors are stable then let's find out what Grizzly Bears do.
 

The_Panda

恭喜發財
First off nice to see the thread maker around.

Second I know that we need research but right now isn't the time. After were atleast stable then we can input into programs and such. But with the stock market crazy and the housing market just as. We don't need to know much about the grizzly Bears.

But we can still keep money into it...just not as much..And all the things you said to get more money are definatly will help. Definatly and I support all of them. But, basically we just need to take a little out to deal with this. And then when the stock market and the housing sectors are stable then let's find out what Grizzly Bears do.

The problem with your argument is that you are assuming the government should be spending lots of money to relieve the crisis. In my opinion the crisis is the product of bad economic policy for the last twenty years... and the way to best recover from the crisis is to increase the money supply/cute interest rates (as the federal reserve has been doing) and reform the regulatory laws such that we don't have a case where good lending practices are punished. To be honest I don't see the connection with government spending on science and government spending on the economy, yes we are going through tough times but I don't see how that necessarily solicits sacrifices the integrity of science. And of course there's also the danger that scientific funding will never pick back up again. You could also argue that now is the time where we NEED science more than anything else to secure the future of the environment, gain energy independence and stop polluting greenhouse gases: that's also a big factor. And really if anything science and technology may become a driving force in the economy as it is not affected by collapses in the rest of the economy directly and given high fuel prices there could be a direct incentive to pursue renewables and alternative energy sources.
 

scythemantis

Creepy crawly
WHO GIVES A F***** CARE what the world thinks??? WE are the only source of Freedom in this world.

This is an absolutely shameful attitude to have. If it doesn't matter what the whole world thinks, what the hell does matter? Other countries are our neighbors, friends and family. We should always take into heavy consideration how they feel about our policies and our actions, just as much as we consider the opinions of our own citizens. We do not have any inherent superiority to any other country (nor vice-versa) and do not automatically know what's best just because of our size and our freedom.

And about that...

The only source of freedom? Are you insane?

If you move to Canada, France, Paris, Britain, Australia or Japan, your life may change in a lot of ways, but you're not going to notice any difference in your own personal freedoms. The flavor and the culture around you will differ but you'll have the same capacity to live the same exact life you have right now. You make it sound like the rest of the world is living under some kind of tyranny.
 
Last edited:

BigLutz

Banned
This is an absolutely shameful attitude to have. If how the world feels doesn't matter, what the hell does matter? Other countries are our neighbors, friends and family. We should always take into heavy consideration how they feel about our policies and our actions, just as we take into consider the majority opinion of our own people. We do not have any inherent superiority to any other country (nor vice-versa) and do not automatically know what's best just because of our size and our freedom.

See this is just what annoys me to no end, and maybe it was just the way your post was written. Yes the Opinion of the rest of the world is important. But no where is it as or equal in importants as the opinion of the people of this country when it comes to decisions made either at the polling place or in many of the discussions in the halls of our Government. There is a time and place for the Opinion of the World, in the discussion of Foreign Policy, in Trade, and in a myriad of other foreign policy situations that affect the entire world.

There is also a time and place when the world should just butt out of our business. When it comes to who we should elect, and in decisions that effect domestic policy the world has no business and should keep it's collective nose out of our business.

And you know what, if the American people were saying "Well we want X to be President of France, or Y to be Prime Minister of Israel." the world would turn to us and say keep our nose out of their business.
 

scythemantis

Creepy crawly
I'm not saying other countries have a right to decide our leaders. I'm saying that when other countries are unhappy about our president, it's not a simple "who cares what they think?" situation. It's very serious and very telling. Our president at any given time is the single most recognizable and influential representative of us as a people, and if we're overwhelmingly looked down upon for that representative's behavior, there's obviously a good, solid reason for it.

If our president pisses off four out of five world leaders, then our voters made a horrible choice. Not necessarily anything we can do about it, I'm just saying it isn't as trivial as kyogre is saying.

What set me off was just the whole "we don't need to care, we're the FREEST!" thing.
 

BigLutz

Banned
I'm not saying other countries have a right to decide our leaders. I'm saying that when other countries are unhappy about our president, it's not a simple "who cares what they think?" situation. It's very serious and very telling. Our president at any given time is the single most recognizable and influential representative of us as a people, and if we're overwhelmingly looked down upon for that representative's behavior, there's obviously a good, solid reason for it.

The job of the President of the United States is not to be the World's Most Popular Person. If we start running the office like that then we are incredibly screwed. Personally I could care less if he is looked down upon or looked up upon by the rest of the world. His job is not to make the rest of the world happy with him, if he was then he would just govern by polls which is absolutely disastrous. His job is to consult with his advisers on the best course of action for this nation and for the American People.

NOT to follow the path that makes the world most happy with him.

If our president pisses off four out of five world leaders, then our voters made a horrible choice. Not necessarily anything we can do about it, I'm just saying it isn't as trivial as kyogre is saying.

You know what? I would rather have a President that pisses off four out of five world leaders and makes the right decisions for the country that he was elected to serve and protect. Than a President that is liked by four out of five world leaders and makes the wrong decisions for the country that he was elected to serve and protect.

As for it being the voters making a horrible choice on the basis that four out of five world leaders are ****** off. How about you pull out the Constitution and tell me which article states that it is the President's job to make World Leaders like him? Which Article? Which Section? Which Sentence?

Being President isn't a popularity contest, too many people seem to think it is. And that scares the hell out of me.
 
Last edited:

scythemantis

Creepy crawly
You know what? I would rather have a President that pisses off four out of five world leaders and makes the right decisions for the country that he was elected to serve and protect. Than a President that is liked by four out of five world leaders and makes the wrong decisions for the country that he was elected to serve and protect.

And this is where my statements become lost on you. You think I'm talking about charisma or some trivial popularity thing, and my entire point is that our current president is widely disliked because his decisions are wrong for the country he was elected to serve and protect.

Name for me one positive thing to come from his eight years of presidency. Something that his opponents in either election wouldn't have done just as well. All I see are billions of dollars and thousands of human lives thrown in the trash for nothing, an environmental policy in tatters, a recession and an outside world that rightfully mocks us.
 
Last edited:

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
my entire point is that our current president is widely disliked because his decisions are wrong for the country he was elected to serve and protect.
watch what you mean here however; the world hears actually very little of bush outside of iraq.

they know absolutely nothing of his economic policies. they just hear obama say 'bush did it and he was president during it; it's his fault!'

you'd be surprised how much little non-Americans know about our politics.
 

BigLutz

Banned
And this is where my statements become lost on you. You think I'm talking about charisma or some trivial popularity thing, and my entire point is that our current president is widely disliked because his decisions are wrong for the country he was elected to serve and protect.

Then it would be the people of this country that would weigh in on that. NOT the World Leaders of various nations.

Name for me one positive thing to come from his eight years of presidency.

I'll name more than one, you can choose one or all of them.

1: Help this nation recover from the .Com Bubble Burst

2: Helped this nation recover from 9/11

3: Saw this nation through two wars, which like it or not, and what ever your opinion is on Iraq now, it was extremely popular to attack at the time, with multiple nations and agencies telling him Saddam had WMDs

4: Helped this country recover from the massive disaster that was Katrina, and the absolute incompetence of the New Orleans and Louisiana Government which made it worse.

5: Helped keep this country from being attacked after 9/11 by a enemy who increasingly tried to do so.

Something that his opponents in either election wouldn't have done just as well. You will find nothing that should please the average rational person.

Well lets look at the Candidates put up in the last 8 years for the Democrat side. Would Al Gore have been able to do.

1: Would Al Gore have been able to help us through the .Com Bubble Burst. Possibly, but his main advocacy, the Lock Box, and the Environment would have superceeded the economy.

2: Would Al Gore have been able to help this nation through 9/11? Yeah I think he could, chalk that one up for both.

3: Would Al Gore have been able to see this nation through two wars. Judging by the Clinton Administration I bet he would have gone into both Iraq and Afghanistan. But I doubt Al Gore would have the stomach to stay in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan when the going got rough.

4: Would Al Gore have helped this nation recover from Katrina? Yeah I think he would have followed through with what Bush did, but possibly have used it to try and milk his environment message.

5: Would Al Gore have made sure this country wouldn't be attacked again after 9/11. I don't think he would, I don't think Al Gore would have gone through the drastic means that the Bush Administration took, which like it or not has saved lives. And I do not think he would have been able to stay in Iraq when the going got tough, which would have only given Al Qaeda more land and money, and more to recruit.

Should I start going through Kerry? Trust me it's even worse than Gore.

Also, you know there are things I disagree with Bush about, Immigration being the biggest one, and his spending being the second biggest, but to act as if he didn't do one good thing in 8 years. Is just ignorant beyond belief, and it is sad that Barack Obama is helping feed this ignorance to the masses.

Explain to me how thousands of soldiers haven't died in vain,

Because none of those soldiers died in vain and it is pathetic and disgusting to even think so. Each of those soldiers gave their lives to not only protect Iraqis and give Iraq a free Democracy outside of the thumb of a dictator. But also to make sure that Al Qaeda cannot turn Iraq into Afghanistan 2.0.

Those thousands of soldiers that died, shed their blood so that millions in Iraq can now live free, and not under either a Insane Ruler, or a Insane Terrorist Group. You can disgustingly call it in Vain, I call it Heroic

Truly the family of every single soldier deserves a apology for such a disgusting sentence.

billions of dollars haven't been thrown in the trash and alliances haven't crumbled.

So now we put a price on Freedom and the Safety of not only Iraqis but ourselves? Millions is worth it? Billions isnt?

And if Alliances are going to crumble over one thing such as Iraq, then they were not much of a alliance in the first place.

Explain to me how we're any safer from terrorism or how Iraq is better off.

Well lets see for one with Iraq the way it is now, it has kept Al Qaeda out, it has caused them to lose their popularity in the muslim world manly due to the Awakening and the Surge. It has kept them from seizing land in Iraq, and establish terrorist training grounds, and a safe harbor for their terrorists. If you do not think by keeping that from happening that we are not safer then you truly are freaking blind.

As for Iraq, they have been freed under a thumb of a dictator ruler, one that would routinely beat people in the middle of the night, abduct children for his own personal army, allow Personal Rape Squads to roam the streets. Who gassed his own people, threw his own people off the side of buildings, and would line up anyone that spoke against him and shoot him, and threw tens of thousands into mass graves ( Who's final numbers are in the Hundreds of Thousands, with many mass graves may remain undiscovered forever )

Again if you think Iraq isn't better off now that Saddam is gone, you are truly freaking blind.

Show me a single promise he ever made during either campaign that paid off.

Well I would have to go through all his Campaign Promises. But I would say keeping this country safe was a pretty big one that paid off.

Even Nixon, a racist and a criminal, did more to benefit America in the long run.

I would say keeping Al Qaeda from attacking again, and slaughtering thousands more, and putting them on the defensive. Did a damn lot to benefit this country.
 
Last edited:

scythemantis

Creepy crawly
Those thousands of soldiers that died, shed their blood so that millions in Iraq can now live free, and not under either a Insane Ruler, or a Insane Terrorist Group. You can disgustingly call it in Vain, I call it Heroic

Truly the family of every single soldier deserves a apology for such a disgusting sentence.

Why should I apologize? I haven't insulted them. It isn't their fault that our government forced their loved ones to extinguish their futures for a big, fat mistake.

Al-queda had no connection with Saddam, but we went ahead and dove into a war on false pretenses as a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. Ooh, yeah, we put them on the defensive. That's just as good as actually going after them in the first place! It's not like they might have been brought to justice by now. It's not like human beings could have fought and died against the people who actually attacked us instead of dinking around in the wrong desert for nearly a decade.

Hell, I'll say it again and again: the war on Iraq has accomplished nothing that was worth even one of the lives we have thrown at it. People who could be at home with loving families right now are rotting in the ground for nothing. Worse than nothing - for the very chaos that terrorists intend to ignite. They made us their pawns. They already won.

2: Helped this nation recover from 9/11

In what sense?

3: Saw this nation through two wars, which like it or not, and what ever your opinion is on Iraq now, it was extremely popular to attack at the time, with multiple nations and agencies telling him Saddam had WMDs

I didn't say the world couldn't make horrible, horrible mistakes. I'm not sure what you mean by him "seeing us through." It's a vague and abstract term. What entails "seeing us through?"

4: Helped this country recover from the massive disaster that was Katrina, and the absolute incompetence of the New Orleans and Louisiana Government which made it worse.

I found his response to be equally delayed and disorganized. NOBODY was competent, and the recovery is far from over.

5: Helped keep this country from being attacked after 9/11 by a enemy who increasingly tried to do so.[/quote]

Extremely debatable. There's no solid evidence that terrorist activity increased after 9/11, it simply appeared so to the public because A) it became a hot subject to report on and B) the government broadened its definition of terrorism.

An activity that might have gone unnoticed before 9/11 could lead to an arrest "just to be safe" and voila, terrorism is "on the rise."
 
Last edited:

Ethan

Banned
I've got on to Scythemantis for inflammatory language, but now I gotta direct that towards you a bit Lutz. Suggesting that people are freaking blind may not be direct flaming, but it sure is straddling the fence. I preferr to keep disasters from happening rather than dealing with them. >_>;

I sure do love listening to the sound of my own voice, wait...I'm typing. Ah well, who cares.
 

Kyogre35

First avy..no touchy
Why should I apologize? I haven't insulted them. It isn't their fault that our government forced their loved ones to extinguish their futures for a big, fat mistake.

I have a different propostion other than you insulting them...which technically you didn't.

But if we pulled out of Iraq then those soliders lives WOULD die in vain. Why don't we finish the war we started. Get an Free country and an ali in the Middle East. THen the soliders would, I think, smile in there graves.

Al-queda had no connection with Saddam, but we went ahead and dove into a war on false pretenses as a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. Ooh, yeah, we put them on the defensive. That's just as good as actually going after them in the first place! It's not like they might have been brought to justice by now. It's not like human beings could have fought and died against the people who actually attacked us instead of dinking around in the wrong desert for nearly a decade.

Hell, I'll say it again and again: the war on Iraq has accomplished nothing that was worth even one of the lives we have thrown at it. People who could be at home with loving families right now are rotting in the ground for nothing. Worse than nothing - for the very chaos that terrorists intend to ignite. They made us their pawns. They already won.

I was....6 or 7 at the time of 9/11 so I don't remember much...but Biglutz said a lot of the advisors to the Gov. said Saddam had WMD's...so that's really all I know about that. And wo wo wo...THROWN AT???? What?? Okay your last paragraph is way to stupid.

First of all, if we could talk to the soliders, they would say they died serving there country SO DONT SAY THEY DIED IN VAIN!!! This and taxes really get me worked up. NOTHING???? AS I SAID IRAQ HAS PROVIDED and aly, a democracy in one of the most violent places on Earth. And....have we been attacked since 9/11?? So I say WE'RE winning.

And what really bugs me is that an AMERICAN citizen said. "We've lost" that in itself makes me afraid of what this country has become.

Is it politics?
Is it just you don't believe in the country and the troops??

I hope it's the first but still always ALWAYS have faith in the greatest country on Earth.



In what sense?

Um we never got attacked after the fact?? That's the sense.



I didn't say the world couldn't make horrible, horrible mistakes. I'm not sure what you mean by him "seeing us through." It's a vague and abstract term. What entails "seeing us through?"

Tisk Tisk Tisk...this coming from the guy who said we should "heavly" listen to the world leaders?? Come on...



I found his response to be equally delayed and disorganized. NOBODY was competent, and the recovery is far from over.

I agree here..Katrina was one of the most dispicable acts by all the forms of Gov...but the best response was no doubt the Fed's so I agree with both of you...and I should know I want to be a Meteorologist.


Extremely debatable. There's no solid evidence that terrorist activity increased after 9/11, it simply appeared so to the public because A) it became a hot subject to report on and B) the government broadened its definition of terrorism.

An activity that might have gone unnoticed before 9/11 could lead to an arrest "just to be safe" and voila, terrorism is "on the rise."

I really don't know agian I was 7 so I think...diddly squat...You and Biglutz should debate this.

I've got on to Scythemantis for inflammatory language, but now I gotta direct that towards you a BIG Lutz. Suggesting that people are freaking blind may not be direct flaming, but it sure is straddling the fence. I preferr to keep disasters from happening rather than dealing with them. >_>;

I sure do love listening to the sound of my own voice, wait...I'm typing. Ah well, who cares.

Corrections in bold...you spelled it Bit Lutz...which IDK is a member...but thanks for bringing something other than politics into the realm..
 

The_Panda

恭喜發財
And what really bugs me is that an AMERICAN citizen said. "We've lost" that in itself makes me afraid of what this country has become.

Is it politics?
Is it just you don't believe in the country and the troops??

I hope it's the first but still always ALWAYS have faith in the greatest country on Earth.

Why should I always have faith in your country? Why should I believe it is the greatest country on Earth? Such ridiculous arrogance and inflated nationalism is beyond the realm of logic, I'm sorry. There is no objective reason why America should be judged a greater nation than say France, China or Brazil. And if you are going to put this on the grounds of policy, where there is some concrete ground, then I'd have to concur and say that much of the policy and opinions that run mainstream in the United States definitely are not the greatest in the world by any reasonable standard. But really why should everyone always have faith in their home country? I certainly don't have much faith in the government of my 'home country', and only slightly better faith in my 'adopted home country'. If you lived during the time when the government pursued segregationist and racist policies, would you still have absolute faith in it and its greatness? I surely wouldn't support my nation during such a time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top