Can you tell me some Bush Positives? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Konichiwaneko · 11-07-2004, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodney

Should the wealthy pay heavy taxes? Sure, why not? After all, America is a wealth-producing machine and they get most of it.

I think then maybe they should get more sway then? Only seems right if they should pay for us more. This is unreasonable though, we all know that.

There is a point though were the rich gets taxxed so much that they will either get up and go, or just stop working all together. You can call it a breaking point, and it will add up if the top earners and workers in our society keeps getting taxxed and taxxed

KMA-628 · 11-07-2004, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rodney

Sorry you're tired of it, but it's true. I don't even have to back it up. .

I have to say that is a new one in a debate.

"its true and I don't even have to back it up"

wow, even when someone refutes your assertions?

so........if I make a claim and someone disagrees with me......can I pretty please use your argument instead of actually having to bring any facts into the discussion?????????

The tax cut affected many different levels of wage earners. It also affected people in a way not related to their income.

"The tax breaks primarily went to the rich".

I am telling you that I dispute this assertion. This statement basically says that rich people got tax cuts while the "working class" and the "poor" got very little.

show me the facts. Don't give me some childish, playground, wimp-out answer.

If, for some reason, you decide to actually research the topic and provide some "proof" to bakc up your claim.....I will apologize. Until then, did you really think a silly answer like "I don't have to" would work?

Rodney · 11-07-2004, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konichiwaneko

There is a point though were the rich gets taxxed so much that they will either get up and go, or just stop working all together. You can call it a breaking point, and it will add up if the top earners and workers in our society keeps getting taxxed and taxxed

I hear what you're saying, but they currently pay less tax as a proportion of income than even the middle class does. Here's an article that makes the point better than I could:

http://baltimorechronicle.com/090204SheldonHLaskin.html

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS:
“Taxes Are What We Pay for Civilized Society”
by Sheldon H. Laskin

Progressive income taxation is based on the very reasonable principle that those who have benefited the most from living in an ordered society should contribute the most to meeting the social needs of the nation.
Many factors have contributed to the erosion of democracy in the United States-increased concentration of corporate media ownership, privatization, deregulation, globalization, etc. But one factor that progressives fail to give adequate attention to is the erosion of the progressive income tax. Increasingly, the burden of taxation in this country is being borne by the middle class for the benefit of the wealthiest Americans.This is a major reason that disparities in wealth between the richest fraction of 1% of Americans and everyone else are at all-time highs.

First, while the richest 1% of Americans-those with reported adjusted gross income (AGI) of more than $313,000 in 2000 (before the Bush tax cuts)-paid more than 37% of individual income tax that year, this is only part of the picture. When other federal taxes are included, their overall federal tax burden was about 25% of total taxes, about 21% of their reported income. And yet, the richest 1% received one-third of the benefit of the Bush tax cuts. And, while $313,000 is certainly a very nice income, people at this level hardly constitute the super-rich in America. The tax burden falls exponentially the higher up the income ladder one looks.
The shift in tax burden is so profound that it will shortly become unfixable without a general income tax increase, because fixing it will simply cost the Treasury too much.

Also, measuring the tax burden by reported income is misleading. The reported income of the very wealthy is a fraction of their total income. Unlike the typical wage earner, the very wealthy are able to take much of their income in forms that never show up on a tax return at all.

One of the major reasons the tax burden is so heavily skewed against the middle class and in favor of the very wealthy is the Social Security tax. This tax is especially burdensome to middle-income taxpayers, while amounting to petty cash for the very wealthy. Unlike the income tax, the Social Security tax applies to the first dollar of income, and the tax is capped (as of 2000) at $76,200 of income. The Social Security tax burden for someone earning $76,200 in 2000 was 12.4% (the sum of the employer and employee share). For someone earning $313,000, this tax burden was only 3%. At $1,000,000, the burden was only nine-tenths of 1%.

Further, Congress didn't cut spending to fund the Bush tax cuts; instead, it borrowed the money. To pay the bill, the middle class subsidized the income tax cuts for the very wealthy, through the Social Security trust fund. Congress routinely uses Social Security taxes in order to meet current general budget needs. In doing so, Congress leaves the Social Security trust fund with an IOU that can be paid only by increasing some combination of the income and/or the Social Security tax, or by cutting Social Security benefits. This, and not the necessity to pay retirement and disability benefits, is the source of the Social Security funding crisis. It is outrageous that the super wealthy, who contribute so little to Social Security, should be able to finance tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit them by handing an unsecured IOU to the rest of us.

Finally, the middle class is increasingly becoming subject to the alternative minimum tax (ATM). Originally enacted to reduce the ability of the very rich to shelter income, for a variety of reasons the burden of the tax is increasingly falling disproportionately on the middle class. By 2010, people with less than $200,000 in income will pay 58.6% of the ATM, while those with $1,000,000 will pay only 6%. Comparable figures for 2003 were 19.2% and 22.5%. This shift in tax burden is so profound that it will shortly become unfixable without a general income tax increase, because fixing it will simply cost the Treasury too much.

Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Progressive income taxation is based on the very reasonable principle that those who have benefited the most from living in an ordered society should contribute the most to meeting the social needs of the nation. No society has long remained democratic that did not have a progressive income tax system. The unwillingness of the very rich to pay their fair share of tax is one measure of the breakdown of the social contract in this country.
The writer holds an LL.M in Taxation from the University of Baltimore, where he teaches state and local tax in the graduate tax program.

Rodney · 11-07-2004, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

I have to say that is a new one in a debate.

"its true and I don't even have to back it up"

wow, even when someone refutes your assertions?

so........if I make a claim and someone disagrees with me......can I pretty please use your argument instead of actually having to bring any facts into the discussion?????????

The tax cut affected many different levels of wage earners. It also affected people in a way not related to their income.

"The tax breaks primarily went to the rich".

I am telling you that I dispute this assertion. This statement basically says that rich people got tax cuts while the "working class" and the "poor" got very little.

show me the facts. Don't give me some childish, playground, wimp-out answer.

If, for some reason, you decide to actually research the topic and provide some "proof" to bakc up your claim.....I will apologize. Until then, did you really think a silly answer like "I don't have to" would work?

You're getting a little close to insulting. Actually, you're right there, and you know it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to offer to apologize under some circumstances. Please moderate your language to continue being a good citizen of the Titled Forum.

As it stands, I did dig up a corroborating article in response to another post. It's a couple of posts up from this one.

And what I meant by "I don't have to" is that I felt that the logic behind my argument was clear for everyone to see. Apparently I was wrong.

I've been too much the enabler in this conversation. I've dug up some info. Rather than say, "I'm tired of hearing this," dig up some facts of your own, if you can.

ravenradiodj · 11-07-2004, 01:56 PM

Just how much fucking money do these people need? How much wealth, privelige and leisure is enough? What motivates a people with ten million in the bank to think, "You know, it's not enough, my great-great-great-grandchildren might want TWO yachts, so I need more." ? When is enough enough? How easy do they need their lives to be? At what point does the point of earning money change from providing a healthy, comfortable life for your family to an unnecessary, greedy contest to amass unneeded wealth just for the hell of it? Does anyone else see the supreme arrogance of this?

Konichiwaneko · 11-07-2004, 03:00 PM

I see quite clearly the wrong in taking something away. Once again these people earned what they had, and they can lose it in the blink of an eye.

Your reaction is why Trial lawyers, and Lawsuits like the Hot Coffee on the old lady at McDonalds succeed.

It's so much better if you earn your money, but if it's given to you you are going to be nothing but dependent on the hand that feeds you. Who cares if they have a lot of money, that doesn't reflect upon you. Don't you want to earn your money rather then steal it?

ravenradiodj · 11-08-2004, 04:20 AM

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say anything about suing anyone, or stealing from anyone. I'm talking about masses and masses of accumulated wealth that's completely unnecessary for the continued leisurely survival of your family. At what point is the race for money no longer about providing for you and yours, but about "whoever dies with the most toys wins"?

skier · 11-03-2005, 10:14 PM

Hello again to all you TFP politicos!

A year has come and gone, and things have changed; evolved. Some things went well for Bush. Some went poor. I'd like to remind posters one more time to try to ignore any trolls that pop up and to refrain from.. vigorous debate.

What has bush done positively in the areas of:

Environmentalism
Health Care
Education
resource management
Foreign policy (minus his attacks on iraq and the war on terror)
Taxes
Economic Growth
social services (including welfare)
foreign trade
etc.

And have the policies he instituted last year served the public well in these areas, or flopped?

Also, I understand better now that the war on terror is a large and influencial factor in the current administration. That doesn't mean we can just ignore problems in the above areas because of it. So keep it low key. It is not the focus of this thread.

The current focus/question of this thread is:
As a republican/conservative/etc. do you feel that in the past year, President Bush has taken the country in the right direction? Since last november, what sort of positive accomplishments has he made for the american people?

And for KMA (if he's around): How do you feel about the increasing size of the current buraucracy, lowered accountability, and the large defecit? Just curious, as you said they were hot button topics for yourself.

host · 11-04-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skier

Hello again to all you TFP politicos!

A year has come and gone, and things have changed; evolved. Some things went well for Bush. Some went poor. I'd like to remind posters one more time to try to ignore any trolls that pop up and to refrain from.. vigorous debate.

What has bush done positively in the areas of:

Environmentalism
Health Care
Education
resource management
Foreign policy (minus his attacks on iraq and the war on terror)
Taxes
Economic Growth
social services (including welfare)
foreign trade
etc.

And have the policies he instituted last year served the public well in these areas, or flopped?..........

A chance for the faithful to defend the "great leader", and fourteen hours go by with nary a peep out of any of them.

There has to be an appropriate time and place to advance an argument that it is one thing to follow a leader that the rest of us are convinced is a complete failure, in almost every area of integrity and accomplishment, and it is another thing to be able to mount a coherent or persuasive argument in his favor. Bush's declining numbers of supporters demonstrate a common opinion that favoring him is just "how they feel". Maybe this piece helps to explain why....(As objectionable as some may find examination of commonality between today's circumstances and what happened 65 years ago, 80 million people were once moved to an extreme via similar methods. In the U.S., we have a history of and a legal right to discuss and examine what happened, and hopefully, learn from it, so it won't happen again.)

Quote:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...z__homelan.htm
Frank Luntz: Homeland Propagandist
Tell A Friend

by Mick Youther

http://www.opednews.com

Presidents have used polling since the Kennedy administration (at least), and George W. Bush is no exception. The Bush Administration just uses its polling data a little differently. Where the Clinton Administration used polling to develop policies that would be popular with the public, the Bush Administration uses their polling to promote ideas that are unpopular with the public.

This is where Frank Luntz comes in. He uses focus groups and other kinds of market research to determine how the public feels about various issues, and more precisely—how they react to specific words and phrases—then he advises Republicans how to use those words to trigger the right emotions in the American public.

Mr. Luntz’s work on environmental concerns is a perfect example of what he is doing for our government. Since gaining control of Congress in 1994, the Republicans have made a concerted effort to roll back all sorts of environmental standards and public health protections. Frank Luntz knows this is not popular with a majority of Americans—so he advises:

If you want to lower the health standards of the Clean Air Act, you should call it “The Clear Skies Initiative”.

If you want to clear-cut our National Forests?—call it the “Healthy Forest Proposal”.

“Become a champion of national parks and forests… Preserving parks and open spaces is a winner.”

Unite Americans by emphasizing our shared rights and beliefs: “we all want to move towards a healthier, safer future”; “we all want/deserve clean air/water”.

…and whatever you do; don’t let the truth get in the way.

“A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth... The facts are beside the point. It's all in how you frame your argument.” --Frank Luntz, quoted in The Guardian, 3/4/03

Mr. Luntz calls it “framing”. Politicians call it spinning. The rest of the world just calls it lying. I think Samantha Bee of the Daily Show got it exactly right when she described Frank Luntz’s work as “a brilliant career spraying perfume on dog turds.”

Because he is strictly a behind-the-scene advisor, it is impossible to say where Frank Luntz’s work ends and Karl Rove’s begins; but together they have developed a propaganda machine that is reminiscent of Germany in the 1930’s. I don’t mean to imply that George W. Bush is the new Adolph Hitler. Hitler was an incredibly effective public speaker; and, fortunately for us, Bush can barely read a speech off a teleprompter. If Bush possessed Hitler’s ability to inflame the public’s passions, we would probably have Ann Coulter marching liberals into gas chambers by now. I am merely pointing out that the Bush Administration’s use of lies and propaganda is similar to what happened in Hitler’s Germany.

“Through technical devices like the radio and the loudspeaker, eighty million people were deprived of independent thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man.” --Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister for Armaments, at his trial at Nuremberg

“The Republicans and especially the neoconservative intellectuals realized that control of information – or one might say replacing it with propaganda – was the key to solidifying their political power within the United States. That’s why the conservatives have invested billions of dollars over the past quarter century in building their own potent media infrastructure, ranging from cable networks and major daily newspapers to AM talk radio and well-organized Internet bloggers.” -- Robert Parry, Consortium News, 3/16/05

“The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.” --Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

“You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists.” --George W. Bush

“Propaganda must be limited to a few simple themes and these must be represented again and again.” -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"There's a simple rule: You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again…”--Frank Luntz, in a Frontline PBS interview, 11/9/04

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” --George W. Bush, 5/24/05

“The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. Especially if it is repeated over and over.” --Adolph Hitler, 1939

<h3> “Weapons of mass destruction… weapons of mass destruction… weapons of mass destruction… weapons of mass destruction…”--Every member of the Bush Administration, every day, for 15 months leading up to their war in Iraq</h3>

Don’t think what happened in Germany can’t happen here. It is already happening. Based on propaganda and outright lies, the Bush Administration has misused America’s military power to invade and occupy a nation that was no threat to us. America is holding hundreds of prisoners in a concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay and 40,000 more in various prisons in Iraq. Prisoners are routinely abused with the blessing of the highest levels of our government. Does this sound like the way things are supposed to be in America?

Where are the checks and balances of our government? Why haven’t our “representatives” in Congress done something to stop these outrages? The short answer is that the Republicans in Congress have steadfastly refused to allow any investigation into the high crimes and misdemeanors of George W. Bush.

Why is that? Are the Republicans in Congress so afraid of the vindictive Bush Administration that they dare not speak out? Do they really believe that Clinton’s lies about a sexual encounter are more worthy of impeachment than Bush’s lies that took our nation into war—or are they the shameless hypocrites that they appear to be?

Those who can make you believe absurdities; can make you commit atrocities--Voltaire, French author (1694 - 1778)

Mick Youther is a retired physiology instructor, now working on regime change in America.

Willravel · 11-04-2005, 12:15 PM

Host, I'm not sure this is the thread for people like us. I can't see anything positive about Bush, and I'd be willing to bet you are on the same page (you might have even written the page). I'll say this about Bush, he is not as bad as Hitler. Those comparisons, while certianally useful in debate, are not yet apt. Those comparisons may be apt soon, but not quite yet.

host · 11-04-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Host, I'm not sure this is the thread for people like us. I can't see anything positive about Bush, and I'd be willing to bet you are on the same page (you might have even written the page). I'll say this about Bush, he is not as bad as Hitler. Those comparisons, while certianally useful in debate, are not yet apt. Those comparisons may be apt soon, but not quite yet.

Read my post here, willravel:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1929256&postcount=3">cia detaining prisoners in secret locations</a>
roachboy ended his <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=97012">subsequent post (#4)</a>, in that same thread, this way:

Quote:

.......dick cheney should be understood as authorizing criminal acts.
he should be worrying about war crimes.
he should be facing prosecution.
at that point, we'll see how much this administration really cares about the rule of law.

but at the moment, the americans are in this respect are deploying a form of state terrorism. all this does is undermine the ability of this administration (and possibly others to follow) to make claims about any higher motive for conflict or even political action. you should perhaps think about what this would mean. the picture is not good.

fill me in on how exactly crimes against humanity advance the cause of anti-terrorism?

Then....come back and tell me, if not now......when??????

Willravel · 11-04-2005, 12:38 PM

I've read every post you've written over the past year or so. The information you bring is second to none, as far as I'm concerned. I have learned a great deal from you. There are parallels between Bush and Hitler of course, but in comparing Bush to Hitler, one compares what Bush has done so far to what Hitler did in totality. While no one more than me hates what Bush is doing to our country, I still cannot compare the sanctions, wars, propoganda, torture, etc. to the holocaust. I'm not ready to make the comparison yet. That day may come, though I pray it doesn't, but I don't think the Bush legacy thus far equates to the holocaust and WW2.

Edit: By the way, I do know that Bush is on the same track as Hitler. The tragic events of 9/11 were a frightening mirror of the burning of the Reichstag. Foretunatally, Bush does not yet have enough power gathered to remain in office beyond 2008, and I doubt he can muster that kind of power.

skier · 11-04-2005, 12:59 PM

Ok guys, although I appreciate the interest, I am looking for positives about bush, and to hear from republicans what if anything has changed since last year in their attitudes about him.

Not to be a jerk, but hitler comparisons in a thread looking for positives in bush isn't exactly in the spirit of the thread. I know there are republicans around the board, come out and post.

host · 11-04-2005, 01:19 PM

willravel, thank you.....skier, I appreciate your patience and tolerance.
My aim was to point out that the last five years have exposed Americans to a propaganda campaign, and the technician (Luntz) and techniques that have made it so effective that it rivals only the remarkably similar campaign to shape and then control the opinion of the public in another country, 65 years ago.

The dilemma, willravel, is the risk that as Bush has stated, he will "catapult the propaganda" to the point where it suddenly influences a clampdown of all efforts to organize dissent and reistance to the agenda of these thugs. The risk of possibly being too early to vehemently protest what they are doing is outweighed, IMO, by the potential consequences, if these comparisions are not pointed out now. How else can you react when you witness, in your own recent times, your own leaders committing illegal war of aggression and other crimes against humanity, while simultaneously using Luntz/Rove tactics to consolidate and then strengthen the politcal base that enabled them to carry out their anti-American, and anti-humanity agenda.

I beleive that it is possible to compare the techniques of then and now, and the eeirily similar phrases, without dredging up debate on comparison of offenses that ensued as a result of mass brainwashing of a nation.

I pointed this out to help make the point that it is difficult for a "target" to explain the effect of a successful propaganda on his or her thinking. This is probably because the effect does not stimulate "thinking"...it creates "feelings", a much harder thing than a thought, when it comes to putting it into words.

I've invited the author of the recent TFP post linked here....
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...32&postcount=6

to come over and post on this thread, because I think that he is someone who "feel" his positions, but has the potential to post here as skier intends....
if anyone can. I'm not convinced though, that anyone can....or will.

skier · 11-04-2005, 03:58 PM

Host, it really is a thought provoking topic. I don't know much about the intricacies of propaganda and the weight it carries in politics, although you can certainly see some the effects in the current administration. I would be very interested to read a thread with a focus on the role of propaganda and how influential it can be.

Quote:

if anyone can. I'm not convinced though, that anyone can....or will.

we had several members take a stab at it last year:
Mr. Mephisto (sorta tongue in cheek, but still appreciated)
Ramega
Konichiwaneko
KMA-628
Aliali
Pan6467

I'd like to see if they think or feel differently now than they did last year, and would like to welcome any fresh opinions from bush supporters as well.

edit- Trimming out my own bias.

Don't want debate, just information and perspective.

ObieX · 11-04-2005, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

He wants to actually work with NASA and get the Space Program going again.

This would have been my answer. I'd have added another, but I really can't think of one.

skier · 11-16-2005, 06:40 AM

Interesting. Host- you were right. I expected to at least see something about the war on terror, if nothing else. But nobody spoke up. (except for you, ObieX. Thank you! lol)

I'm at a loss for what this signifies. I'm still seeing board members defending the actions of president bush, but if there are no significant positive measures or actions he has implemented, why are you supporting him? I really can't get into your heads about this one, right now I just can't see your "side" having a rational basis for support of the current president. What are you really trying to defend?

ubertuber · 11-16-2005, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I recently read a book that talked about this very phenomena. It was about game theory and strategic thinking. What they said ends up happening is that people often are forced to misrepresent their beliefs (by being more extreme) to get movement to their side. Because the closer to center you are, the less your position will cause change. So people will take the most extreme position possible without going "over the edge" and being considered a crackpot. Even if you would be happier at a more central point on the idological spectrum, you will go farther than that to counteract such behavior from the other side.

I pulled this post from Tecoyah's "I reall want to know..." thread.

I think it speaks to what you are asking skier. I also know that in real life, I have found myself being placed in a position of supporting things I don't approve of because they are done by the side that I see as the lesser of two evils. I think we see some of that in the TFP politics threads.

Konichiwaneko · 11-16-2005, 08:14 AM

I actually swore of the politics board, but let me read back catch up and get back to this.

jorgelito · 11-16-2005, 08:46 PM

I'm going to take a different approach. Although I am not a Bush fan, heck, I really don't like him I will give a non-partisan answer to the question.

What I find positive about Bush (as far as I can tell) is that he seems to be loyal to his friends. I find that to be an admirable trait. However, in the context of the office of the presidency, maybe not so good.

Willravel · 11-16-2005, 09:01 PM

I agree with Bush on at least one thing.

I think that life is created upon conception. To me a zygote is at the same level or above the level of living mammal. At best, in my mind, a zygote is at the level of a very (very, very) young child. Therefore, any and every abortion ever to have been carried out is an act of first degree murder, in my mind. I think that the unborn will eventually be the last group to be persecuted, and that scares me. The fact that people can assume that the mother has the right to kill off her child, just because the child hasn't come out of her yet, frightens me. I realize that a woman has many rights that were at one time stomped on by bigots, but the 'right' to kill is not a right. It is immoral in the biggest way. IMO. That being said, I'd never support any of the radical pro-lifers who use violence. It is truely disturbing to think that I share a belief with those who would kill the mother and the child as a statement to save the child's life.

I'll write more if I can think of them.

Konichiwaneko · 11-16-2005, 09:55 PM

I read up on it, still believe how I feel.

Not happy with how Bush has basically spent more then we need too. Being that I live in Georgia, I know money is not the answer (we rank 50th I think in state education, but the children get annually $11k in money for them, highest in the nation).

Fema for example gives out big checks for people to do...nothing. The work in the gulf coast (which my whole family has property on) and the progress there is hidious because of the politics involved.

Bush has been awful either by how he's been presented by media, or how he communicates over the past few months. I can't tell you everything that's happening in D.C. but if I based everything I knew on our great unbiased media... I would hate that dude like no other. I think the ongoing scandel with almost everyone or everything in his office is annoying also.

I'm one easy to admit I"m wrong, and in this case I appologize if people thought I was a 100% bush supporter. I'm not changing my opinion in the case of how the military felt for him, that I standly believe in. But I do feel dissapointed to see a man in such a posistion that could easily have been turned in his favor, and because of either his reaction or the media's potrayal of him (and his lack of pc work) it just took the turn for the worse.

Conclusion :

It's dissapointing watching someone who could of moved forward get jammed in the system that you despise. So much wasted potential.

Dissapointed by the politics on both sides of the equation, and in a way that's why I left this board.

In an effort not to cause any turmoil among us. I wish things could of been better, but I don't think they are too much worse. I think how bush is going right now is damaging him, but not the republican party in total. People are beginning to distant themselves away because of his portrayel.

I would still vote for Rice over Clinton in 08 though.

Konichiwaneko · 11-16-2005, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It is truely disturbing to think that I share a belief with those who would kill the mother and the child as a statement to save the child's life.

I'll write more if I can think of them.

Extremist very much suck, on all sides.

I respect your belief, and this topic has been super difficult for me to find a steadfast approach on. I do know that realizing you share you beliefs with some kooky people can be heartbreakening. I find myself in that posistion when I find myself defending or standing by religious right people...ugh

dy156 · 11-17-2005, 10:04 PM

Bush has some good ideas and is bold enough to put them out there-
Social Security needs to be reformed- he tried and failed, but at least he had the balls to say something needed to be done.

I actually think he is more sensible on immigration than most Republicans. the current system does not work, and is silly in its hypocracy. America doesn't work the way it does without lots of illegal immigrants. Acknowledge this, save the money dealing with countless illegals, and tax the $$ being sent back to Mexico. It makes sense. Whether he will be successful is an open ?
We have begun to be more pragmatic in dealing with Iraq, and that is a positive step.
I like his nominations for sc and fed chairman - even miers would have made a better justice than many said she would.

I was a huge fan of Gov. Bush, as I have said in this forum many times over the years, but have been disappointed in Bush as pres. plenty of times. (he was a far better gov. than the current one in tx, and no other gov. has as much exposure to Mexico and immigration problems - yes, even more so than Ariz or CA)

My honest opinion- his heart is in the right place, but he's gullible. that's it.

ArellaNova · 11-30-2005, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Non-farm Productivity grew at a higher rate than during the Clinton administration.

You can read more about these statistics at http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...ntentid=252964

Mr Mephisto

Mr. Mephisto,
Actually, your diagram there is pretty accurate. But what it fails to explain is the overall effects of political legislation on the economy. Economic growth or decline is measured by quarters. Each quarter reports reflect changes that have taken months and years to come into effect. Such as tax cuts. Regans economic policies didn't take hold till the early 90's.

All of those blue lines are honest to God growth, but they have the wrong name to them. All that growth is due to the policies of one....Ronald Regan.

Kinda makes you wanna hit something, doesn't it.

The red arrows? Same deal. Owed to the economic policies of Bill Clinton.

hmmm.......

shakran · 11-30-2005, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArellaNova

Mr. Mephisto,
Actually, your diagram there is pretty accurate. But what it fails to explain is the overall effects of political legislation on the economy. Economic growth or decline is measured by quarters. Each quarter reports reflect changes that have taken months and years to come into effect. Such as tax cuts. Regans economic policies didn't take hold till the early 90's.

All of those blue lines are honest to God growth, but they have the wrong name to them. All that growth is due to the policies of one....Ronald Regan.

Kinda makes you wanna hit something, doesn't it.

The red arrows? Same deal. Owed to the economic policies of Bill Clinton.

hmmm.......

Wow. Obviously you are saying democrats are more efficient.

Because it took Reagan and Bush the Elder 14 years before we started seeing gains in the middle of the Clinton presidency, but it only took Clinton 8 years to bring it completely around the other way.

See, this argument is what we call a load of crap. Either it takes 4 years, 8 years, or damn near 15 years for a president's economic policies to take effect. It doesn't make sense that it took Reagan's policies 14 years to have their effect, and Clinton's policies only 8. It's also exceedingly convenient that no matter what happens to the economy, the president gets to blame the last guy.

That's great for the president, since no president can EVER be held accountable for his economic blunders while in office.

host · 11-30-2005, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArellaNova

Mr. Mephisto,
Actually, your diagram there is pretty accurate. But what it fails to explain is the overall effects of political legislation on the economy. Economic growth or decline is measured by quarters. Each quarter reports reflect changes that have taken months and years to come into effect. Such as tax cuts. Regans economic policies didn't take hold till the early 90's.

All of those blue lines are honest to God growth, but they have the wrong name to them. All that growth is due to the policies of one....Ronald Regan.

Kinda makes you wanna hit something, doesn't it.

The red arrows? Same deal. Owed to the economic policies of Bill Clinton.

hmmm.......

You're new to the forum, and seemingly smug....even arrogant....compared to the lack of strength and documentation you presented.

First impressions are important. What is it that "you wanna hit"?

You indicate a personal feeling of anger that the actual "record" of the politician you favor, has not been fully appreciated.

In fact, I do appreciate Reagan's "contribution". He left us with a pathetic legacy and lasting influence that the Clinton presidency was temporarily able to reverse, but one that the Bush administration has set back "on track" again. When will the eighty-five percent of Californians who cannot afford an average priced home, or the 45.8 million with no health insurance coveage, reap the "benefit" of the Bush influenced economy?

"Trickle down" economic policies do not benefit the majority. Officials in the Bush administration seem to agree:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...083001727.html
Poverty Rate Continues To Climb
2004 Census Data Show Labor Market Is Still Struggling

By Jonathan Weisman and Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 31, 2005; Page A03

Despite robust economic growth last year, 1.1 million more Americans slipped into poverty in 2004, while household incomes stagnated and earnings fell, the Census Bureau reported yesterday. The number of Americans without health insurance rose by 800,000, to 45.8 million.........

.........The median household income stood at $44,389 last year, down slightly from the 2003 level of $44,482. But that level was propped up by more people going to work for lower earnings. A full-time male worker earned a median income of $40,798 last year, down $963 in inflation-adjusted dollars from 2003. Women's median earnings fell $327, to $31,223.

The poverty rate climbed in 2004 to 12.7 percent, from 12.5 percent in 2003 -- the fourth year in a row that poverty has risen. The increase was borne completely by non-Hispanic whites, the only ethnic group that saw its poverty rate rise. The percentage of whites in poverty rose from 8.2 percent in 2003 to 8.6 percent. African Americans saw no change in their poverty rate, which remained at 24.7 percent. The poverty rate for Hispanics remained at 21.9 percent, while Asian Americans' poverty levels dropped by two percentage points, to 9.8 percent.

The Midwest was the only region that saw both the poverty rate rise and median household income fall, a "double whammy,".............

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080801445.html
Snow Concedes Economic Surge Is Not Benefiting People Equally

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 9, 2005; Page A03

Treasury Secretary John W. Snow acknowledged yesterday that the fruits of strong economic growth are not spreading equally to less educated Americans, as he and the rest of President Bush's economic team prepared to meet today to discuss wages and income distribution in an otherwise surging economy.........

........A study released yesterday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office focuses on "unprecedented" declines in the workforce in the wake of the 2001 recession that continued through early 2005. Job growth in this economic recovery has been substantially slower than previous recoveries, the CBO said.

Administration officials now acknowledge they have a problem, at least with voters' perceptions. Bush will huddle with his Treasury, agriculture, labor and commerce secretaries, his budget director and his two top economic advisers to review the farm economy, overall economic growth, wages, income levels, income distribution and trade, Snow said.

"If the country as a whole is going to undergo economic growth, then the population has to be able to take advantage of opportunities," said Randal K. Quarles, Treasury's undersecretary for domestic finance. "And to the extent out there that there are differentials, significant differentials in the population in their ability to take advantage of those opportunities, that's one of the things we have to consider."

Quote:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/s...1/daily53.html
October 4, 2001
More Californians can afford to buy a home

The percentage of households in California able to afford a median-priced home increased by three percentage points in August compared to a year ago, according to a report released today by the California Association of Realtors [CAR].

Its figures show that one out of three (32 percent) of California families could qualify for a loan to buy the median-priced home. .........

Quote:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8502784/
Few Calif. households can afford a home
Higher prices pushing affordability down near record lows
Updated: 12:11 p.m. ET July 11, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO - The percentage of California households that can afford to buy a median-priced home has neared a record low, according to a report released Thursday.

The percentage fell to 16 percent in May from 17 percent in April and 19 percent a year earlier, according to the report by the California Association of Realtors.

"The record low was 14 percent set back in May and June of 1989," said Robert Kleinhenz, an economist with the group.

In the fall of 2001, nine months after Bush took office, 32 percent of California households could afford to purchase a median priced house in that state. 43 months later....in may, 2005, half the 2001 household number....just 16 percent could afford to buy the median priced, California house.

Can an economy that fails to bring improvements in wages and benefits and housing affordability to 84 percent of it's participants, an economy that places more households in poverty for four years in a row, be described as a success of the POTUS who presides over it?

<a href="http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest_and_there_is_no_one_there_to_hear_it_fall_does_it_make_a_noise">If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it fall does it make a noise?</a>
Change the wording to "if an economy grows and only the wealthiest get to benefit from it, does a POTUS deserve much credit for the growth?

dksuddeth · 11-30-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArellaNova

Mr. Mephisto,
Actually, your diagram there is pretty accurate. But what it fails to explain is the overall effects of political legislation on the economy. Economic growth or decline is measured by quarters. Each quarter reports reflect changes that have taken months and years to come into effect. Such as tax cuts. Regans economic policies didn't take hold till the early 90's.

All of those blue lines are honest to God growth, but they have the wrong name to them. All that growth is due to the policies of one....Ronald Regan.

Kinda makes you wanna hit something, doesn't it.

The red arrows? Same deal. Owed to the economic policies of Bill Clinton.

hmmm.......

the economy took a pretty immediate downturn while carter was in office
stagnation existed for the first 2-3 years of reagans presidency and then there was the 80's boom
the economy was in relative flux during Bush 41's term
during clintons first term the economy slightly rose
clintons second term was a huge boom (tech bubble) then burst right at the end of his second term
Bush 43 economy suffered greatly in the first term, mainly due to terror fears
high level economy during the last 5 years has been robust, middle class is shrinking and poverty class increased.

I fail to see how you can define great economic times, especially in that chart, as being reagans tax cuts. would that mean that the 80s boom was carters doing? unlikely.

it's more likely that you truly don't understand supply side economics and would rather just attribute a prosperous economy to the last two term republican president instead of realizing what technology innovations can do to enhance GDP and production.

I hear they have economics classes in community colleges around the nation. Maybe you should take a few.

ArellaNova · 12-01-2005, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

You're new to the forum, and seemingly smug....even arrogant....compared to the lack of strength and documentation you presented.

First impressions are important. What is it that "you wanna hit"?

You indicate a personal feeling of anger that the actual "record" of the politician you favor, has not been fully appreciated.

In fact, I do appreciate Reagan's "contribution". He left us with a pathetic legacy and lasting influence that the Clinton presidency was temporarily able to reverse, but one that the Bush administration has set back "on track" again. When will the eighty-five percent of Californians who cannot afford an average priced home, or the 45.8 million with no health insurance coveage, reap the "benefit" of the Bush influenced economy?

"Trickle down" economic policies do not benefit the majority. Officials in the Bush administration seem to agree:

In the fall of 2001, nine months after Bush took office, 32 percent of California households could afford to purchase a median priced house in that state. 43 months later....in may, 2005, half the 2001 household number....just 16 percent could afford to buy the median priced, California house.

Can an economy that fails to bring improvements in wages and benefits and housing affordability to 84 percent of it's participants, an economy that places more households in poverty for four years in a row, be described as a success of the POTUS who presides over it?

<a href="http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest_and_there_is_no_one_there_to_hear_it_fall_does_it_make_a_noise">If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it fall does it make a noise?</a>
Change the wording to "if an economy grows and only the wealthiest get to benefit from it, does a POTUS deserve much credit for the growth?

As I have observed from this forum documentation is not required to have an opinion. I thank you for pointing that out though. If I have some time to pull up my old election files I will provide the documentation you require.

Smug/arrogant? Not so much more than anyone else, I'm afraid.

First impressions: Who am I trying to impress? Would you think my opinion true to form if I WERE trying to impress you?

I challenge you, then, to a documentation stand off. You havn't provided me with it to support your theory that Clinton fixed anything. (I would suggest that it happen in a seperate thread though-out of respect - or over PM or e-mail)

As to California, and the other states, Individual state economies can not be measured soely against national policies. They have individual laws, codes, legislatures, and regulations. California is a state that has been run by liberal-democrats for years. What does that say to you?

That is an interesting theory. I have a few that refute most liberal-democrat principles. The most important and the basis for many of my opinions is "Economics in One Lesson" By Henry Hazlett
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/051...lance&n=283155

This has the clearest and concise explination of "The Broken Window Theory" which I use as basis for the argument that Govenrment intervention to "fix" economic problems only creates more problems.

I don't think the President himself deserves credit for economic growth or delcine as a whole at all. I think that Presidential policies can take credit for "affecting" the economy one way or another.

Yet is it my beleif that our free market economy is an entity unto itself - influences by many sources -deserving to be seen through the eyes of the public AND private sectors (gasp, yes. corporations. And parnterships. And small businesses).

Willravel · 12-01-2005, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArellaNova

I challenge you, then, to a documentation stand off.

Uh oh. This could get really messy, really fast. Maybe just do links instead of showing the whole page, highlighting only the most relevent parts. Let's make this a good clean source-off.

roachboy · 12-01-2005, 10:49 AM

well, arella, if you are willing to buy the absurd premises of neoclassical economic theory then it would almost seem logical that you would attribute all kinds of equally absurd attributes to reagan and grossly inflate the effects of his policies. generally, conservative metaphysics wrapped in economic language is an article of faith amongst folk who operate on the right--which means that they are almost never able to defend their positions to people who do not share their faith. but such is the position you find yourself in--it'll be interesting to see if you fare any better than your rightwing comrades often do here. try to lay out your premises in ways that are logically accessable to folk who view your politics as untenable, please. who knows, maybe an interesting debate may come of it.

ArellaNova · 12-01-2005, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

well, arella, if you are willing to buy the absurd premises of neoclassical economic theory then it would almost seem logical that you would attribute all kinds of equally absurd attributes to reagan and grossly inflate the effects of his policies. generally, conservative metaphysics wrapped in economic language is an article of faith amongst folk who operate on the right--which means that they are almost never able to defend their positions to people who do not share their faith. but such is the position you find yourself in--it'll be interesting to see if you fare any better than your rightwing comrades often do here. try to lay out your premises in ways that are logically accessable to folk who view your politics as untenable, please. who knows, maybe an interesting debate may come of it.

Why are they absurd?

The problem is that conservatives (or the rights- or christinas-or whatever the name/flaver of the day is) never do defend themselves. It comes from a world view that is strongly backed up by history and tradition.

Is that the reason for my views? nope. will I debate "neoclassical" economic theory (quotes because that is not a right-on-the-money discription for my opinions and beleifs but close enough) sure.

Do I think it is right? yes.

Will I debate using sources? Sure.

Try to lay out premises that are logically accessable? I think I have and will continue to do so. Logic is good.

You may now commence with the namecalling ..... (or debate if anyone wants to suprise me out of some of my remaining cynicisim)

roachboy · 12-01-2005, 11:29 AM

i was kind of hoping that you would bypass the expression of willingness and simply lay out the premises and arguments that you base on them that might help make sense of your positions outlined earlier. but i suppose that these expressions are nice. so there we are. how about the actual arguments now?

as for the idea that conservatives are backed by history and tradition, i see nothing explanatory in either noun, and nothing compelling about the claim. how about you suspend reliance on it and simply spell out where you are coming from in your earlier posts please?

ubertuber · 12-01-2005, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArellaNova

I challenge you, then, to a documentation stand off.

Oh jesus - I never thought anyone would say THAT to host!

ArellaNova, welcome to TFP. I don't want you to think that people laughing at an inside joke, so I'll explain that most complaints about host are relating to the excessive documentation he uses to back his points up. I seriously doubt that his 9 hour silence following your challenge is because you stumped him!

I think you'll find that good original thinking and logic is acceptable without documentation (otherwise you'd never be posting your own opinions), but facts should be backed up unless you want a thread to descend into bickering about where you got your info.

Elphaba · 12-01-2005, 08:35 PM

Finally! Arella, I can't tell you how pleased I am that someone is willing to back up what they say in response to Host. I have yet to see it in nearly a year.

The TFP politics forum might just become a more intellectual place to be, if the current responses to Host need to rise above "yo mamma" type replies.

I look forward to it.

ArellaNova · 12-02-2005, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i was kind of hoping that you would bypass the expression of willingness and simply lay out the premises and arguments that you base on them that might help make sense of your positions outlined earlier. but i suppose that these expressions are nice. so there we are. how about the actual arguments now?

as for the idea that conservatives are backed by history and tradition, i see nothing explanatory in either noun, and nothing compelling about the claim. how about you suspend reliance on it and simply spell out where you are coming from in your earlier posts please?

That might have been a bit confusing. I wasn't referring to history as a whole but western history and western judeo-christian traditions. Yep, I said it

I would love to answer your question, but in all honesty I would like a more specific path or question from which to follow. As you can guess most of my beleifs are related to eachother to form a whole opinion and personality but I decline to lay all of them out before you simply as a deference to time and space on this forum. I can over some method of private mail - with the understanding that I am not online every day and there might be some delay over weekend periods - give you an essay or two on what I beleive on various topics, but then again I would need some direction.

I will assume, for the moment, that we can focus on my claim that political actions only affect the economy in part, and that those effects can and often do encounter an immeasurable delay.

I can also assume that the part you object to most is my opinion that most of the prosperity in Clintons time was due to the policies of Regan. ( I would like to include in that statment the policies of Regan republicans of his time and the actions of the republican congress under the Bush senior/Clinton years in office.)

Correct?

ArellaNova · 12-02-2005, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Oh jesus - I never thought anyone would say THAT to host!

ArellaNova, welcome to TFP. I don't want you to think that people laughing at an inside joke, so I'll explain that most complaints about host are relating to the excessive documentation he uses to back his points up. I seriously doubt that his 9 hour silence following your challenge is because you stumped him!

I think you'll find that good original thinking and logic is acceptable without documentation (otherwise you'd never be posting your own opinions), but facts should be backed up unless you want a thread to descend into bickering about where you got your info.

I am pleased that Roachboy and Host have challenged me, honestly. I have beleived these things for along time, but this gives me reason to go back and refresh my documentation.

I guess it is needless of me to say now that I am a fiscal conservative. I have yet to find a really good term to discribe where I stand on social issues but conservative is close enough for general discussion.

I am amused of someone "preparing ammo" as you infer of Hosts absence and actions. This could be fun!

I hope he gives me leniency as far as time goes to prepare educated and measured (and hopefully correctly spelled

responses since I work nearly 40 hours over the weekends and 25 durring the weeks. The soul is VERY willing. The reality of life however......:P

ArellaNova · 12-02-2005, 11:49 AM

posted by Dksuddeth

Quote:

it's more likely that you truly don't understand supply side economics and would rather just attribute a prosperous economy to the last two term republican president instead of realizing what technology innovations can do to enhance GDP and production.

I was a history of economics major and principles of economics minor at a four year liberal arts college. Your comments really do make me smile. I realize that I have made some challenging and very cursory statments. I was intellectually "jerking the line" and there were a few bites.

dksuddeth · 12-02-2005, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArellaNova

I was a history of economics major and principles of economics minor at a four year liberal arts college. Your comments really do make me smile. I realize that I have made some challenging and very cursory statments. I was intellectually "jerking the line" and there were a few bites.

If what you say is true and you still believe that the booming tech industry of the 90's was a result of reagans policies, then i'd get your money back.

tell me, did your history and principles classes only discuss the positive aspects of keynesian economics or did it try to theorize on the long term principles of supply side shortcomings?

skier · 12-05-2005, 08:09 PM

So, uhmm, my thread took an interesting turn.

Thanks to willravel, konichiwaneko, and dy156 for their responses before the ArellaNova sidetracking.

Thanks for throwing so much thought into your response konichiwaneko. I believe I learned a lot from it.

11-07-2004, 03:00 PM	#46 (permalink)
Konichiwaneko The Dreaded Pixel Nazi Location: Inside my camera	I see quite clearly the wrong in taking something away. Once again these people earned what they had, and they can lose it in the blink of an eye. Your reaction is why Trial lawyers, and Lawsuits like the Hot Coffee on the old lady at McDonalds succeed. It's so much better if you earn your money, but if it's given to you you are going to be nothing but dependent on the hand that feeds you. Who cares if they have a lot of money, that doesn't reflect upon you. Don't you want to earn your money rather then steal it? __________________ Hesitate. Pull me in. Breath on breath. Skin on skin. Loving deep. Falling fast. All right here. Let this last. Here with our lips locked tight. Baby the time is right for us... to forget about us.

11-03-2005, 10:14 PM	#48 (permalink)
skier Rawr! Location: Edmontania	Hello again to all you TFP politicos! A year has come and gone, and things have changed; evolved. Some things went well for Bush. Some went poor. I'd like to remind posters one more time to try to ignore any trolls that pop up and to refrain from.. vigorous debate. What has bush done positively in the areas of: Environmentalism Health Care Education resource management Foreign policy (minus his attacks on iraq and the war on terror) Taxes Economic Growth social services (including welfare) foreign trade etc. And have the policies he instituted last year served the public well in these areas, or flopped? Also, I understand better now that the war on terror is a large and influencial factor in the current administration. That doesn't mean we can just ignore problems in the above areas because of it. So keep it low key. It is not the focus of this thread. The current focus/question of this thread is: As a republican/conservative/etc. do you feel that in the past year, President Bush has taken the country in the right direction? Since last november, what sort of positive accomplishments has he made for the american people? And for KMA (if he's around): How do you feel about the increasing size of the current buraucracy, lowered accountability, and the large defecit? Just curious, as you said they were hot button topics for yourself. __________________ "Asking a bomb squad if an old bomb is still "real" is not the best thing to do if you want to save it." - denim

11-04-2005, 12:38 PM	#52 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I've read every post you've written over the past year or so. The information you bring is second to none, as far as I'm concerned. I have learned a great deal from you. There are parallels between Bush and Hitler of course, but in comparing Bush to Hitler, one compares what Bush has done so far to what Hitler did in totality. While no one more than me hates what Bush is doing to our country, I still cannot compare the sanctions, wars, propoganda, torture, etc. to the holocaust. I'm not ready to make the comparison yet. That day may come, though I pray it doesn't, but I don't think the Bush legacy thus far equates to the holocaust and WW2. Edit: By the way, I do know that Bush is on the same track as Hitler. The tragic events of 9/11 were a frightening mirror of the burning of the Reichstag. Foretunatally, Bush does not yet have enough power gathered to remain in office beyond 2008, and I doubt he can muster that kind of power. Last edited by Willravel; 11-04-2005 at 04:13 PM..

11-04-2005, 12:59 PM	#53 (permalink)
skier Rawr! Location: Edmontania	Ok guys, although I appreciate the interest, I am looking for positives about bush, and to hear from republicans what if anything has changed since last year in their attitudes about him. Not to be a jerk, but hitler comparisons in a thread looking for positives in bush isn't exactly in the spirit of the thread. I know there are republicans around the board, come out and post. __________________ "Asking a bomb squad if an old bomb is still "real" is not the best thing to do if you want to save it." - denim

11-04-2005, 01:19 PM	#54 (permalink)
host Banned	willravel, thank you.....skier, I appreciate your patience and tolerance. My aim was to point out that the last five years have exposed Americans to a propaganda campaign, and the technician (Luntz) and techniques that have made it so effective that it rivals only the remarkably similar campaign to shape and then control the opinion of the public in another country, 65 years ago. The dilemma, willravel, is the risk that as Bush has stated, he will "catapult the propaganda" to the point where it suddenly influences a clampdown of all efforts to organize dissent and reistance to the agenda of these thugs. The risk of possibly being too early to vehemently protest what they are doing is outweighed, IMO, by the potential consequences, if these comparisions are not pointed out now. How else can you react when you witness, in your own recent times, your own leaders committing illegal war of aggression and other crimes against humanity, while simultaneously using Luntz/Rove tactics to consolidate and then strengthen the politcal base that enabled them to carry out their anti-American, and anti-humanity agenda. I beleive that it is possible to compare the techniques of then and now, and the eeirily similar phrases, without dredging up debate on comparison of offenses that ensued as a result of mass brainwashing of a nation. I pointed this out to help make the point that it is difficult for a "target" to explain the effect of a successful propaganda on his or her thinking. This is probably because the effect does not stimulate "thinking"...it creates "feelings", a much harder thing than a thought, when it comes to putting it into words. I've invited the author of the recent TFP post linked here.... http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...32&postcount=6 to come over and post on this thread, because I think that he is someone who "feel" his positions, but has the potential to post here as skier intends.... if anyone can. I'm not convinced though, that anyone can....or will. Last edited by host; 11-04-2005 at 01:29 PM..

11-07-2004, 01:56 PM	#45 (permalink)
ravenradiodj Crazy	Just how much fucking money do these people need? How much wealth, privelige and leisure is enough? What motivates a people with ten million in the bank to think, "You know, it's not enough, my great-great-great-grandchildren might want TWO yachts, so I need more." ? When is enough enough? How easy do they need their lives to be? At what point does the point of earning money change from providing a healthy, comfortable life for your family to an unnecessary, greedy contest to amass unneeded wealth just for the hell of it? Does anyone else see the supreme arrogance of this?

11-08-2004, 04:20 AM	#47 (permalink)
ravenradiodj Crazy	What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say anything about suing anyone, or stealing from anyone. I'm talking about masses and masses of accumulated wealth that's completely unnecessary for the continued leisurely survival of your family. At what point is the race for money no longer about providing for you and yours, but about "whoever dies with the most toys wins"?

11-04-2005, 12:15 PM	#50 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Host, I'm not sure this is the thread for people like us. I can't see anything positive about Bush, and I'd be willing to bet you are on the same page (you might have even written the page). I'll say this about Bush, he is not as bad as Hitler. Those comparisons, while certianally useful in debate, are not yet apt. Those comparisons may be apt soon, but not quite yet.

11-16-2005, 06:40 AM	#57 (permalink)
skier Rawr! Location: Edmontania	Interesting. Host- you were right. I expected to at least see something about the war on terror, if nothing else. But nobody spoke up. (except for you, ObieX. Thank you! lol) I'm at a loss for what this signifies. I'm still seeing board members defending the actions of president bush, but if there are no significant positive measures or actions he has implemented, why are you supporting him? I really can't get into your heads about this one, right now I just can't see your "side" having a rational basis for support of the current president. What are you really trying to defend? __________________ "Asking a bomb squad if an old bomb is still "real" is not the best thing to do if you want to save it." - denim

11-16-2005, 08:14 AM	#59 (permalink)
Konichiwaneko The Dreaded Pixel Nazi Location: Inside my camera	I actually swore of the politics board, but let me read back catch up and get back to this. __________________ Hesitate. Pull me in. Breath on breath. Skin on skin. Loving deep. Falling fast. All right here. Let this last. Here with our lips locked tight. Baby the time is right for us... to forget about us.

11-16-2005, 08:46 PM	#60 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	I'm going to take a different approach. Although I am not a Bush fan, heck, I really don't like him I will give a non-partisan answer to the question. What I find positive about Bush (as far as I can tell) is that he seems to be loyal to his friends. I find that to be an admirable trait. However, in the context of the office of the presidency, maybe not so good.

11-16-2005, 09:01 PM	#61 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I agree with Bush on at least one thing. I think that life is created upon conception. To me a zygote is at the same level or above the level of living mammal. At best, in my mind, a zygote is at the level of a very (very, very) young child. Therefore, any and every abortion ever to have been carried out is an act of first degree murder, in my mind. I think that the unborn will eventually be the last group to be persecuted, and that scares me. The fact that people can assume that the mother has the right to kill off her child, just because the child hasn't come out of her yet, frightens me. I realize that a woman has many rights that were at one time stomped on by bigots, but the 'right' to kill is not a right. It is immoral in the biggest way. IMO. That being said, I'd never support any of the radical pro-lifers who use violence. It is truely disturbing to think that I share a belief with those who would kill the mother and the child as a statement to save the child's life. I'll write more if I can think of them.

11-16-2005, 09:55 PM	#62 (permalink)
Konichiwaneko The Dreaded Pixel Nazi Location: Inside my camera	I read up on it, still believe how I feel. Not happy with how Bush has basically spent more then we need too. Being that I live in Georgia, I know money is not the answer (we rank 50th I think in state education, but the children get annually $11k in money for them, highest in the nation). Fema for example gives out big checks for people to do...nothing. The work in the gulf coast (which my whole family has property on) and the progress there is hidious because of the politics involved. Bush has been awful either by how he's been presented by media, or how he communicates over the past few months. I can't tell you everything that's happening in D.C. but if I based everything I knew on our great unbiased media... I would hate that dude like no other. I think the ongoing scandel with almost everyone or everything in his office is annoying also. I'm one easy to admit I"m wrong, and in this case I appologize if people thought I was a 100% bush supporter. I'm not changing my opinion in the case of how the military felt for him, that I standly believe in. But I do feel dissapointed to see a man in such a posistion that could easily have been turned in his favor, and because of either his reaction or the media's potrayal of him (and his lack of pc work) it just took the turn for the worse. Conclusion : It's dissapointing watching someone who could of moved forward get jammed in the system that you despise. So much wasted potential. Dissapointed by the politics on both sides of the equation, and in a way that's why I left this board. In an effort not to cause any turmoil among us. I wish things could of been better, but I don't think they are too much worse. I think how bush is going right now is damaging him, but not the republican party in total. People are beginning to distant themselves away because of his portrayel. I would still vote for Rice over Clinton in 08 though. __________________ Hesitate. Pull me in. Breath on breath. Skin on skin. Loving deep. Falling fast. All right here. Let this last. Here with our lips locked tight. Baby the time is right for us... to forget about us.

11-17-2005, 10:04 PM	#64 (permalink)
dy156 cookie Location: in the backwoods	Bush has some good ideas and is bold enough to put them out there- Social Security needs to be reformed- he tried and failed, but at least he had the balls to say something needed to be done. I actually think he is more sensible on immigration than most Republicans. the current system does not work, and is silly in its hypocracy. America doesn't work the way it does without lots of illegal immigrants. Acknowledge this, save the money dealing with countless illegals, and tax the $$ being sent back to Mexico. It makes sense. Whether he will be successful is an open ? We have begun to be more pragmatic in dealing with Iraq, and that is a positive step. I like his nominations for sc and fed chairman - even miers would have made a better justice than many said she would. I was a huge fan of Gov. Bush, as I have said in this forum many times over the years, but have been disappointed in Bush as pres. plenty of times. (he was a far better gov. than the current one in tx, and no other gov. has as much exposure to Mexico and immigration problems - yes, even more so than Ariz or CA) My honest opinion- his heart is in the right place, but he's gullible. that's it.

12-01-2005, 10:49 AM	#71 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, arella, if you are willing to buy the absurd premises of neoclassical economic theory then it would almost seem logical that you would attribute all kinds of equally absurd attributes to reagan and grossly inflate the effects of his policies. generally, conservative metaphysics wrapped in economic language is an article of faith amongst folk who operate on the right--which means that they are almost never able to defend their positions to people who do not share their faith. but such is the position you find yourself in--it'll be interesting to see if you fare any better than your rightwing comrades often do here. try to lay out your premises in ways that are logically accessable to folk who view your politics as untenable, please. who knows, maybe an interesting debate may come of it. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-01-2005, 11:29 AM	#73 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i was kind of hoping that you would bypass the expression of willingness and simply lay out the premises and arguments that you base on them that might help make sense of your positions outlined earlier. but i suppose that these expressions are nice. so there we are. how about the actual arguments now? as for the idea that conservatives are backed by history and tradition, i see nothing explanatory in either noun, and nothing compelling about the claim. how about you suspend reliance on it and simply spell out where you are coming from in your earlier posts please? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

12-01-2005, 08:35 PM	#75 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Finally! Arella, I can't tell you how pleased I am that someone is willing to back up what they say in response to Host. I have yet to see it in nearly a year. The TFP politics forum might just become a more intellectual place to be, if the current responses to Host need to rise above "yo mamma" type replies. I look forward to it.

12-05-2005, 08:09 PM	#80 (permalink)
skier Rawr! Location: Edmontania	So, uhmm, my thread took an interesting turn. Thanks to willravel, konichiwaneko, and dy156 for their responses before the ArellaNova sidetracking. Thanks for throwing so much thought into your response konichiwaneko. I believe I learned a lot from it. __________________ "Asking a bomb squad if an old bomb is still "real" is not the best thing to do if you want to save it." - denim