John Kerry

[cr3am]

www.JohnKerryIsADoucheBagButImVotingForHimAnyway.c om

[Silence]

i have to say this but, thatisthemostlongestwebpageaddressihaveeverseen.

[Yian]

I'm with green party. Anyone interested in voting our guys into the office?

[Hobbes874]

I'd much rather vote Kerry than Bush, but alas I'm only 17 :(.

[Freakonaleash89]

I would be voting for George Bush if I was old enough to vote. He has helped add jobs for American workers, and has helped the economy recover with the tax cuts. The tax cuts went right back into the economy to boost it. The economy needed help, and Bush was there to do something about it.

If Bush had gone the Democratic way, and raised taxes, that money would most likely be wasted by the government somehow. It has been shown time and time again that throwing money at problems does not really fix them. Americans know how to manage their money far better than the government does. I applaude Bush for realizing this.

Bush has spent too much money on Iraq lately in my opinion, he needs to remedy that in his next term. In the long term an oil deal with them could pay the money back to use however.

Kerry however will probably roll back the tax cuts and start wasting again. He will pull out of Iraq, and waste all the resources we have put into it. Their new government will collapse, they will go back to the way they were before, and they will forever hate us. No oil for us that way...

Kerry does have a better view on enviromental issues, that is, if he actually does what he says. He lies so often, that who's to know if he will do ANYTHING that he says he will do.

Besides the war in Iraq(which I for one support), Bush has been an excellent leader for this country. Give him another term, and he can make this country strong. That is until the next 8 years of Democrats.

[cr3am]

Originally posted by Yian
I'm with green party. Anyone interested in voting our guys into the office? Yay! Waste a vote!
Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
I would be voting for George Bush if I was old enough to vote. He has helped add jobs for American workers AAHHAHAHAHAHAhahHAhahAHA. He's added a few thousand jobs after losing millions. Fucking lies.

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
Bush has spent too much money on Iraq lately in my opinion, he needs to remedy that in his next term. In the long term an oil deal with them could pay the money back to use however. Funny, I don't think he believed he spent too much money on Iraq when he boosted his Haloburton (sp) stocks by hiring them above cosst without an auction.

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
He will pull out of Iraq, and waste all the resources we have put into it. Nobody is claiming to remove us from Iraq. We've wasted too much time and money there to just pull out. We have to fix what Bush fucked up.

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
Give him another term, and he can make this country strong. That is until the next 8 years of Democrats. BAHHAHAHA. As if the country was gasping for breath when Clinton was here? The country was fucking thriving. Damn southerners.

[Hobbes874]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
I would be voting for George Bush if I was old enough to vote. He has helped add jobs for American workers, and has helped the economy recover with the tax cuts. The tax cuts went right back into the economy to boost it. The economy needed help, and Bush was there to do something about it.

If Bush had gone the Democratic way, and raised taxes, that money would most likely be wasted by the government somehow. It has been shown time and time again that throwing money at problems does not really fix them. Americans know how to manage their money far better than the government does. I applaude Bush for realizing this.

Bush has spent too much money on Iraq lately in my opinion, he needs to remedy that in his next term. In the long term an oil deal with them could pay the money back to use however.

Kerry however will probably roll back the tax cuts and start wasting again. He will pull out of Iraq, and waste all the resources we have put into it. Their new government will collapse, they will go back to the way they were before, and they will forever hate us. No oil for us that way...

Kerry does have a better view on enviromental issues, that is, if he actually does what he says. He lies so often, that who's to know if he will do ANYTHING that he says he will do.

Besides the war in Iraq(which I for one support), Bush has been an excellent leader for this country. Give him another term, and he can make this country strong. That is until the next 8 years of Democrats.
Dear God, I'm glad you can't vote. Bush is a dumbass who fucked this country over, multiple times!

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by cr3am

BAHHAHAHA. As if the country was gasping for breath when Clinton was here? The country was fucking thriving. Damn southerners.

The country was thriving due to Daddy Bush. Strang how soon after Bush was elected things started going downhill. That was because of Clinton and his wastefulness. It couldn't have been Bush, because the economy doesn't respond that fast.



Yay! Waste a vote!

At least he won't be voting for a lying dog like Kerry. We need someone who can take action. Bush has, Clinton never did.

[cr3am]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
The country was thriving due to Daddy Bush. Strang how soon after Bush was elected things started going downhill. That was because of Clinton and his wastefulness. It couldn't have been Bush, because the economy doesn't respond that fast. AHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHA. Never mind, I'm not going to argue with someone who's blind to the facts and biased towards a party. Me? I don't give a fuck wether they're democrat or republican, I care what they do. Bush is a fucking moron, let Dick run the whole show, and surprisingly, they both fucked it up. Clinton made OUR lives better.

Did you see the Academy Awards? Remember Billy Crystal? "It's funny. Ten years ago our economy was in a recession, Bush was in office, and we were at war with Iraq. It's amazing how things change." Yeah, it was definitely Clinton's fault.

[Bhazard]

I'm voting for Arnold.

[Yian]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
At least he won't be voting for a lying dog like Kerry. We need someone who can take action. Bush has, Clinton never did.
I have to agree that Bush is a man of action, and Clinton was really a pussy.

But Bush is trying to make America the king of the world. I knw that fits your taste, Freak, to be the king of the world. But I rather live in a place that has enough power to protect ourselves while stille maintain healthy relationships with the others.

If you really buy into the crap that "everyone out there are psycho and trying to fuck us up, so before that heppen let's fuck them up first," then feel free to vote for Bush.

In a land of Democracy, we don't need a strong leader. A strong leader is great for a land of dictatorship, so when he says someting it is done absolutely on his accord. We need a man who can listen to everyone's opinion and choose the action that satisfy the most. Bush might be doing the right thing in a long run, but that's the thing for a king to do. A president is not there to do the thing that he think is right. He should be doing what "we" think is right.

[Roq]

Yeah I agree, Bush actualy did stuff, he isn't a pussy.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Yian
I have to agree that Bush is a man of action, and Clinton was really a pussy.

But Bush is trying to make America the king of the world. I knw that fits your taste, Freak, to be the king of the world. But I rather live in a place that has enough power to protect ourselves while stille maintain healthy relationships with the others.

If you really buy into the crap that "everyone out there are psycho and trying to fuck us up, so before that heppen let's fuck them up first," then feel free to vote for Bush.

In a land of Democracy, we don't need a strong leader. A strong leader is great for a land of dictatorship, so when he says someting it is done absolutely on his accord. We need a man who can listen to everyone's opinion and choose the action that satisfy the most. Bush might be doing the right thing in a long run, but that's the thing for a king to do. A president is not there to do the thing that he think is right. He should be doing what "we" think is right.

I say matter-of-factly that you are one of the most intelligent people on these forums.

I think you nailed my views on the head quite well. I also respect your opinion highly on this matter.

I respect a person that states what they stand for in the beginning and sticks to it. So far, I think Bush has done that. I also respect a man that isn't influenced alot by what people think day to day. We as Americans elected him, I think we should put some trust into what he is doing and let him do his job without as much second guessing. But it wouldn't be american without constant second-guessing...

[RADiator]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
I respect a person that states what they stand for in the beginning and sticks to it. So far, I think Bush has done that. I also respect a man that isn't influenced alot by what people think day to day. We as Americans elected him, I think we should put some trust into what he is doing and let him do his job without as much second guessing. But it wouldn't be american without constant second-guessing... Indeed, and lets just forget the unnecessary war. And with it we might as well just forget the lives that have been lost in this conflict of civilians and soldiers alike. Bush has single-handedly created second Chechnya. A conflict that has no end. He have a tactic of shoot first, think later. That and that tactic alone will lead his "campaign" into the hole he'll never be able to get out of. This (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/11/iraq.main/) is only the top of the iceberg. There will be worse, much, much worse.

Originally posted by Yian
I have to agree that Bush is a man of action, and Clinton was really a pussy.

But Bush is trying to make America the king of the world. I knw that fits your taste, Freak, to be the king of the world. But I rather live in a place that has enough power to protect ourselves while stille maintain healthy relationships with the others.

If you really buy into the crap that "everyone out there are psycho and trying to fuck us up, so before that heppen let's fuck them up first," then feel free to vote for Bush.

In a land of Democracy, we don't need a strong leader. A strong leader is great for a land of dictatorship, so when he says someting it is done absolutely on his accord. We need a man who can listen to everyone's opinion and choose the action that satisfy the most. Bush might be doing the right thing in a long run, but that's the thing for a king to do. A president is not there to do the thing that he think is right. He should be doing what "we" think is right. Bravo! Well said my friend.

[Hobbes874]

Originally posted by Roq
Yeah I agree, Bush actualy did stuff, he isn't a pussy.
but he could be outsmarted easily by a rock.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Hobbes874
but he could be outsmarted easily by a rock.

He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1968, and received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975.

I'd like to see a rock, or even you, get through Havard Business School.

[NiteX]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
He received a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1968, and received a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975.

I'd like to see a rock, or even you, get through Havard Business School.

Then why the fuck is he so dumb?




Bush is a fucking moron, Clinton was the man. I am voting for Kerry end of story. Im still waiting for Bush to be assassinated. I was told it would happen, why the fuck is it taking so long?:mad:

[Roq]

even if you dont like bush, kerry is not the answer. he stays right in the middle of every conlfit to win everyones interest, who knows what the fuck he is going to do if he is in office.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Roq
even if you dont like bush, kerry is not the answer. he stays right in the middle of every conlfit to win everyones interest, who knows what the fuck he is going to do if he is in office.

Exactly, he is CONSTANTLY flipflopping on important issues depending upon who he is talking to. Finally SOMEONE that can see that.

[Shadow]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
The country was thriving due to Daddy Bush. Strang how soon after Bush was elected things started going downhill. That was because of Clinton and his wastefulness. It couldn't have been Bush, because the economy doesn't respond that fast.





At least he won't be voting for a lying dog like Kerry. We need someone who can take action. Bush has, Clinton never did.

Thanks for the ignorance on the first statement. Let's put it this way, after Bush finished with Texas, their education, health and evironment ratings went to the 50th "best" state in the US. He's done similar with the entire US. THe facts back it up.

And for the second one, 300 lies from the top 5 in the Bush party still makes Kerry the lying dog? Good one, Freak, good one. Your ignorance, and many outright lies are starting to piss me off.

About the education, his rich dad got him into harvard, and got him through it. It's obvious, on the millitary testings and other such testings, Bush scored in the BOTTOM 25%. That's on non-biased ratings. BUT, he was still picked for (forget what), over many other MUCH more qualified people. He's a joke, stupid, doesn't care that he's stupid and ACTUALLY believes that God helped him get elected. Anything that would have the numbers changed and have a election rigged can't be a benevolent force (aka the Devil if anything :D).

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Shadow
Thanks for the ignorance on the first statement. Let's put it this way, after Bush finished with Texas, their education, health and evironment ratings went to the 50th "best" state in the US. He's done similar with the entire US. THe facts back it up.

And for the second one, 300 lies from the top 5 in the Bush party still makes Kerry the lying dog? Good one, Freak, good one. Your ignorance, and many outright lies are starting to piss me off.

About the education, his rich dad got him into harvard, and got him through it. It's obvious, on the millitary testings and other such testings, Bush scored in the BOTTOM 25%. That's on non-biased ratings. BUT, he was still picked for (forget what), over many other MUCH more qualified people. He's a joke, stupid, doesn't care that he's stupid and ACTUALLY believes that God helped him get elected. Anything that would have the numbers changed and have a election rigged can't be a benevolent force (aka the Devil if anything :D).

I know your connections can get you into Harvard, but not through it. Everyone, even the richest and most powerful, have to do the work to get through.

And yes, Kerry is still the lying dog. The Bush administration tries to be tactful and not tell everyone what they are doing. If they did, the enemy could watch our TV and know our moves.

I find it amusing how many times you democrat supporters use the word ignorant or stupid in your agruments, but don't actually give any hard facts about anything.

[cr3am]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
I find it amusing how many times you democrat supporters use the word ignorant or stupid in your agruments, but don't actually give any hard facts about anything. Hard fact about being stupid? Maybe the fact that he makes up words?

I didn't see you resppond to my Haloburton stocks statement.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by cr3am
Hard fact about being stupid? Maybe the fact that he makes up words?

I didn't see you resppond to my Haloburton stocks statement.

Everyone makes up a word now and again, usually... :)

There isn't much to say about the Haloburton thing and I don't know enough about it to comment about it.

[cr3am]

Basically, him and Cheney have lots of stock in Haloburton. Normally what the government does is do an auction, and the company with the lowest bid gets to do the work (rebuilding Iraq for example). What Cheney and Bush did was give it to haloburton without auctioning it, and at a higher rate. GG Bush.

[Hobbes874]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
And yes, Kerry is still the lying dog.
And the Bush Administration isn't?! BAHAHAHAhAHAA! Ever notice how the media and Bush would talk about WMD non-stop before the war? Yet once they couldn't find shit, everyone stopped talking about it, instead they stated that the reason we were in Iraq was to "Save the Iraqi people", bull fucking shit! I find it amazing, how we can spend millions of dollars a week in Iraq and there are still people starving in America. It may sound selfish but if you have problems at home fix those before you go out and try to "save" the rest of the world.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Hobbes874
And the Bush Administration isn't?! BAHAHAHAhAHAA! Ever notice how the media and Bush would talk about WMD non-stop before the war? Yet once they couldn't find shit, everyone stopped talking about it, instead they stated that the reason we were in Iraq was to "Save the Iraqi people", bull fucking shit! I find it amazing, how we can spend millions of dollars a week in Iraq and there are still people starving in America. It may sound selfish but if you have problems at home fix those before you go out and try to "save" the rest of the world.

Actually I believe he said "we have strong reason to believe that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" but yeah, I think that was a major fuckup on Bush's part. Alot of Bush supporters blindly believe what he says but I don't. It really tarnished my opinion of him. I think Bush needs to appoint someone to manage the Iraq situation and concentrate more on US affairs.

Basically, him and Cheney have lots of stock in Haloburton. Normally what the government does is do an auction, and the company with the lowest bid gets to do the work (rebuilding Iraq for example). What Cheney and Bush did was give it to haloburton without auctioning it, and at a higher rate. GG Bush.

That's just the way stuff works... Kerry would do the same I am sure.

[cr3am]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
That's just the way stuff works... Kerry would do the same I am sure. Oh okay, you make a baseless statement that you think Kerry would do it and expect that to mean anything to us?


Now guys, the fact is that everyone lies. EVERYONE. Bush lies just as much as Kerry. Everyone lies, get over it.

Kerry isn't a moron. Bush is a moron. Kerry would concentrate on us and not start wars that shouldn't have been started [yet]. Bush starts a war, and starts thinking of going to Mars, the Moon, and gives tax cuts, all while spending way too much money on Iraq.

[jesuskingofpeace]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
I would be voting for George Bush if I was old enough to vote. He has helped add jobs for American workers, and has helped the economy recover with the tax cuts. The tax cuts went right back into the economy to boost it. The economy needed help, and Bush was there to do something about it.

If Bush had gone the Democratic way, and raised taxes, that money would most likely be wasted by the government somehow. It has been shown time and time again that throwing money at problems does not really fix them. Americans know how to manage their money far better than the government does. I applaude Bush for realizing this.

Bush has spent too much money on Iraq lately in my opinion, he needs to remedy that in his next term. In the long term an oil deal with them could pay the money back to use however.

Kerry however will probably roll back the tax cuts and start wasting again. He will pull out of Iraq, and waste all the resources we have put into it. Their new government will collapse, they will go back to the way they were before, and they will forever hate us. No oil for us that way...

Kerry does have a better view on enviromental issues, that is, if he actually does what he says. He lies so often, that who's to know if he will do ANYTHING that he says he will do.

Besides the war in Iraq(which I for one support), Bush has been an excellent leader for this country. Give him another term, and he can make this country strong. That is until the next 8 years of Democrats.

you have no idea what you are talking about do you? Do you follow the news, or just parrot what you hear? The country is filled with people like you.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by jesuskingofpeace
you have no idea what you are talking about do you? Do you follow the news, or just parrot what you hear? The country is filled with people like you.

I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about. I don't follow the damn news, and I just parrot what I hear. I only think the way I do because people tell me too. Intelligent and wealthy people are hardcore democrats. :rolleyes:

[cr3am]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about. I don't follow the damn news, and I just parrot what I hear. I only think the way I do because people tell me too. Intelligent and wealthy people are hardcore democrats. :rolleyes: You're sarcasm is horrible. The only way we know you're not serious is that ":rolleyes:" you have, because you're telling the complete truth...

[Yian]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about. I don't follow the damn news, and I just parrot what I hear. I only think the way I do because people tell me too. Intelligent and wealthy people are hardcore democrats. :rolleyes:
Linking Wealth and intelligence together, you have embraced on the idea that a man's goal of life is solely based on material pleasure. Most Materialists derived such result from their attitude of life based on their definition of existence. Just curious, if you are a hardcore Materialist, may I ask which faction you belong to? Are you an Identity Theorist, or an Eliminative Materialist?

I disagree with the concept of Dualism, too, but that doesn't mark me as a Materialist. Maybe you aren't one, either. But you do demonstrate some of the typical behavior of one.

[Smapdey]

Wow. I see a complete lack of understanding of this little thing called Keynesian economics. Look it up, read about it, and then think about how fucking easy it is to repair an economy, the fact that all Bush did was give the rich a tax break (Using trickle down economics, a bunch of shit really, it actually causes the system to become more top heavy, something that caused the great depression).

Bush is trying to get us killed. I don't care who you are, but anyone that is trying to kill me is my enemy. The longer you remember that, the longer you'll live.

Anyone that jumps on the parties, and just votes for their party, is a god damn idiot.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Smapdey
Wow. I see a complete lack of understanding of this little thing called Keynesian economics. Look it up, read about it, and then think about how fucking easy it is to repair an economy, the fact that all Bush did was give the rich a tax break (Using trickle down economics, a bunch of shit really, it actually causes the system to become more top heavy, something that caused the great depression).

Bush is trying to get us killed. I don't care who you are, but anyone that is trying to kill me is my enemy. The longer you remember that, the longer you'll live.

Anyone that jumps on the parties, and just votes for their party, is a god damn idiot.

I agree with what you are saying partly, but the rich need a tax break just as others do. They work hard to earn *edit* money, and I don't like the fact that the poor don't pay any. Really, it should be a flat percentage of people of all income levels to make things truely fair.

[Smapdey]

Look, let me explain it to you, the tax break didn't do squat except make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Given the people on the streets and the guy in the mansion, I'm likely to help the guy on the street first.

[cr3am]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
I agree with what you are saying partly, but the rich need a tax break just as others do. They work hard to earn taxes, and I don't like the fact that the poor don't pay any. Really, it should be a flat percentage of people of all income levels to make things truely fair. What's the point of arguing with this logic?

[Hobbes874]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
I agree with what you are saying partly, but the rich need a tax break just as others do. They work hard to earn taxes, and I don't like the fact that the poor don't pay any. Really, it should be a flat percentage of people of all income levels to make things truely fair.
*Scratches head* Did that even make sense?

[Yian]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
I agree with what you are saying partly, but the rich need a tax break just as others do. They work hard to earn taxes, and I don't like the fact that the poor don't pay any. Really, it should be a flat percentage of people of all income levels to make things truely fair.
Poor don't pay any because poor don't get any. If you think "that's not true poor gets a lof of stuff" then you need to look up the dictionary and see what "poor" means. People get rich in a society not because he "made" the money, but because he worked "in a society", and if there is no society, it is a race of how many fruits on the floor you can pick up.

Freak, I find your opinion becoming more and more radical, but none of them are backed up by any solid logic or arguments. You might want to start making some sense. Flat tax rate? You got to be kidding me. So, you want a man who is on minimum wage to pay $500,000 a month? Or you want a dude with millions of income an year pay $5? If there is a flat wealth distribution, there will be a flat tax rate. If not, there will nver be a flat rate.

"Poor, don't pay, not fair." How about this one: "Kids don't work, not fair!"

Sound just like an opinion from someone who believes that poverty doesn't exist in America.

[Smapdey]

I think he means that there should be just a percentage paid, that that's mostly what he's grasping for. Of course, there's so many logistics to work out with that, and given the fact that what might not be much money to someone might be destroying to another.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Yian

Freak, I find your opinion becoming more and more radical, but none of them are backed up by any solid logic or arguments. You might want to start making some sense. Flat tax rate? You got to be kidding me. So, you want a man who is on minimum wage to pay $500,000 a month? Or you want a dude with millions of income an year pay $5? If there is a flat wealth distribution, there will be a flat tax rate. If not, there will nver be a flat rate.


Certainly not! Forgive my lack of clarity there. I meant a flat income tax percentage for those who work. Say, 20%. As it is my family pays closer to double that percentage, and I don't like it.

[Smapdey]

No.

[cr3am]

"If you want to live like a Republican, vote for a Democrat."

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Hobbes874
*Scratches head* Did that even make sense?

I made a typo everyone.

[cr3am]

http://counterspin.blogspot.com/2004/05/bush-league-ohio-manufacturing-plant.html

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. Tell us we're wrong now, man.

[TopSecretBoy]

I believe tax should be found by exponential growth on the yearly income of an individual. Just an extremely rough example:

You make 1,000 a year, you pay 1% of it.

You make 2,000 a year, you pay 2% of it.

You make 3,000 a year, you pay 4% of it.

You make 4,000 a year, you pay 8% of it.

These are EXTREMELY rough numbers, but just an idea of what I'm saying here. Try to make the poor richer and the rich poorer. I don't want everyone to ride around in a limo, and I don't want everyone to have to walk to work. But I want everyone somewhere in the middle. And hopefully, to be happy. Sure, I think some people should have more money than other people, simply because they deserve it. But there shouldn't be such extremes. And you'll find out that throughout history, the more the extremes were eliminated, the better the society was.

[cr3am]

Originally posted by cr3am
http://counterspin.blogspot.com/2004/05/bush-league-ohio-manufacturing-plant.html

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. Tell us we're wrong now, man.

[Jaredster]

Originally posted by TopSecretBoy
I believe tax should be found by exponential growth on the yearly income of an individual. Just an extremely rough example:

You make 1,000 a year, you pay 1% of it.

You make 2,000 a year, you pay 2% of it.

You make 3,000 a year, you pay 4% of it.

You make 4,000 a year, you pay 8% of it.

.

so x% = 2^(income/1000)

log_2 100 = 6.6438

so 6.6438 * 1000 = 6643.8

so if you make $6643.8 a year, you will not be able to keep any of it.

[cr3am]

I don't feel like looking at your math right now, Jared, but if you made $6,000, you'd be paying 32% and if you made $7,000 you'd be paying 64%.


If you make $1,000, you would not be giving back 2^(1000/1000), because then you'd be paying 2%.


GG, jared. Nice try looking smart. (Even though you're right, that topsecretboy is a damn moron)


Edit:
Simply put, where the fuck did you get log base 2 of 100?
Also, this isn't an arithmetic or geometric series.

[Smapdey]

At a certain point, you wouldn't make any money at all. If I'm making a million dollars and the government is taking away 90 percent of that, I'm only left with 100,000 dollars, if I stop working so hard, and aim to make less money, I can probably continue to make 100,000 dollars. Your system would actually cause a lot of people to not work as much because of the growth of taxation. You'd literally destroy the economy.

[cr3am]

Originally posted by Smapdey
TopSecret, how is this a flat tax rate? And at a certain point, you wouldn't make any money at all. If I'm making a million dollars and the government is taking away 90 percent of that, I'm only left with 100,000 dollars, if I stop working so hard, and aim to make less money, I can probably continue to make 100,000 dollars. Your system would actually cause a lot of people to not work as much because of the growth of taxation. You'd literally destroy the economy. Dude, if you made $8,000 a year you'd have to pay it all to taxes

[Smapdey]

I know that, but assuming that these are very rough numbers (I make more than 8,000 a year) and that they are changed, tax rates have to have a limit, they can't just shoot up.

[Yian]

Alright, guys, 3600 soldiers that were deployed at S Korea is now heading for Iraq:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34653-2004May17.html

We lost 100 man in april. Assume it is "not" going to get any worse, we then lose about 100 soldiers everymonth.

That means we will lose 100 X 12 = 1200 soldiers a year.

If Bush gets re-elected, and stay in the office for another 4 years, we will lose 1200 X 4 = 4800 soldiers.

So, it is in my opinion to send additional 1200 soldiers besides the 3600 US is already sending, so the figure 4800 can be fulfilled. Else, get Bush fucking out of the office already.

This is of course not accurate in any measure, since we don't necessary going to lose 100 guys and gals every month, and Bush might not let them stay in Iraq for another 4 year. But there is this possibility that things might get not better, but worse...

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by TopSecretBoy
I believe tax should be found by exponential growth on the yearly income of an individual. Just an extremely rough example:

You make 1,000 a year, you pay 1% of it.

You make 2,000 a year, you pay 2% of it.

You make 3,000 a year, you pay 4% of it.

You make 4,000 a year, you pay 8% of it.

These are EXTREMELY rough numbers, but just an idea of what I'm saying here. Try to make the poor richer and the rich poorer. I don't want everyone to ride around in a limo, and I don't want everyone to have to walk to work. But I want everyone somewhere in the middle. And hopefully, to be happy. Sure, I think some people should have more money than other people, simply because they deserve it. But there shouldn't be such extremes. And you'll find out that throughout history, the more the extremes were eliminated, the better the society was.


Say if you use that figure but x5. That would make taxes even worse than they already are dude! Well for the average person it wouldn't, but for the above average it would be ALOT worse.

[Jaredster]

Originally posted by cr3am
I don't feel like looking at your math right now, Jared, but if you made $6,000, you'd be paying 32% and if you made $7,000 you'd be paying 64%.


If you make $1,000, you would not be giving back 2^(1000/1000), because then you'd be paying 2%.


GG, jared. Nice try looking smart. (Even though you're right, that topsecretboy is a damn moron)


Edit:
Simply put, where the fuck did you get log base 2 of 100?
Also, this isn't an arithmetic or geometric series.

you don't need to be a prick about it, I just didn't read it right, I thought his percentage of taxing was increasing by 2^(income/1000). Seriously cr3am you don't need to shot me down every fucking time I make a mistake.

so anyways here is the fixed version

x% = 2^((income-1000)/1000)

so if you make lets say $2000,

2^((2000-1000)/1000) = 2

so yea im getting bored of this.

[Smapdey]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
Say if you use that figure but x5. That would make taxes even worse than they already are dude! Well for the average person it wouldn't, but for the above average it would be ALOT worse.

You honestly think that some poor prick only makes 1000 bucks a year?

Originally posted by Yian
Alright, guys, 3600 soldiers that were deployed at S Korea is now heading for Iraq:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004May17.html

We lost 100 man in april. Assume it is "not" going to get any worse, we then lose about 100 soldiers everymonth.

That means we will lose 100 X 12 = 1200 soldiers a year.

If Bush gets re-elected, and stay in the office for another 4 years, we will lose 1200 X 4 = 4800 soldiers.

So, it is in my opinion to send additional 1200 soldiers besides the 3600 US is already sending, so the figure 4800 can be fulfilled. Else, get Bush fucking out of the office already.

This is of course not accurate in any measure, since we don't necessary going to lose 100 guys and gals every month, and Bush might not let them stay in Iraq for another 4 year. But there is this possibility that things might get not better, but worse...

That's 4800 men too many. Did anyone need to die? Do people realize that people are getting killed over this? Anyone?

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Smapdey
You honestly think that some poor prick only makes 1000 bucks a year?



No, but 20 maybe.

[cr3am]

Originally posted by Jaredster
Seriously cr3am you don't need to shot me down every fucking time I make a mistake. You're right.

But where did that log come from?

[Yian]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
No, but 20 maybe.
I have seen people living on credit card and cash card before. There are some really fucked up poor ass out there. 20... very possible.

[Jaredster]

Originally posted by cr3am
You're right.

But where did that log come from?

trying to fixure out when 2^x hits 100

so thats when you no longer make money.

it comes at 2^6.6438 = 100%

so ((income-1000)/1000) = 6.6438

((income-1000)) = 6643.8

((income)) = 7643.8

so by Freakonaleash89's scale, you will no longer make money once you get 7643.8 because it will be 100% taxed.

[Smapdey]

Right, but not a thousand.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Yian
I have seen people living on credit card and cash card before. There are some really fucked up poor ass out there. 20... very possible.

They can't do that indefinately, eventually they will go bankrupt because the interest will eat them alive. Then they won't be able to get credit afterwards and eventually they will learn to either make more money or live within their means.

My parents do it the right way: no debt. No debt on the house, or the cars, or anything else.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Jaredster


so by Freakonaleash89's scale, you will no longer make money once you get 7643.8 because it will be 100% taxed.

My scale (to prove how bad it is):

You make 1,000 a year, you pay 1% of it.

You make 2,000 a year, you pay 2% of it.

You make 3,000 a year, you pay 4% of it.

You make 4,000 a year, you pay 8% of it.

times 5 income=

You make 5,000 a year, you pay 1% of it.

You make 10,000 a year, you pay 2% of it.

You make 15,000 a year, you pay 4% of it.

You make 20,000 a year, you pay 8% of it.

25=10
30=12
35=14
40=16
45=18
50=20%

I think that ends up at $250,000 a year you would be at 100% taxation, but you would never reach it because you would be paying the government so much more.

[Smapdey]

Have you ever seen anyone do it any other way?

[cr3am]

So if you make $4,000 a year, you pay $320 in taxes. If you make $5,000 you'd only have to pay $50 a year.


Why don't you just.... yeah.

[Jaredster]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
My scale (to prove how bad it is):

You make 1,000 a year, you pay 1% of it.

You make 2,000 a year, you pay 2% of it.

You make 3,000 a year, you pay 4% of it.

You make 4,000 a year, you pay 8% of it.

times 5 income=

You make 5,000 a year, you pay 1% of it.

You make 10,000 a year, you pay 2% of it.

You make 15,000 a year, you pay 4% of it.

You make 20,000 a year, you pay 8% of it.

25=10
30=12
35=14
40=16
45=18
50=20%


it was increasing by multiples of 2^x, no 2x... but still its stupid, lets forget about it.

[TopSecretBoy]

Jesus fucking Christ, did you guys even read where I wrote

"EXTREMELY rough numbers" ?

Holy fuck. Do I need to go back and bold that shit for you jackasses?

[cr3am]

EXTREMELY rough numbers need to at least have the right idea going... this is more like EXTREMELY wrong numbers. They not only are off (like ROUGH would imply), but they flip flop!


I mean, I get what you're trying to say, but um... give it a break? I dunno, please don't take it as a flame, but this argument is so pointless, and you giving us your theory of taxes won't help give it a point.

[TopSecretBoy]

Originally posted by cr3am
EXTREMELY rough numbers need to at least have the right idea going... this is more like EXTREMELY wrong numbers. They not only are off (like ROUGH would imply), but they flip flop!


I mean, I get what you're trying to say, but um... give it a break? I dunno, please don't take it as a flame, but this argument is so pointless, and you giving us your theory of taxes won't help give it a point.

It makes sense if you actually think about it. And I don't mean for the percentages to be increased so much. Have it on a scale system. The more you make, the more taxes you pay. But the higher it goes, the less the percentage increases.

50,000 a year. 10% = 5,000 a year in tax. Total made per year: 45,000

100,000 a year. 15% = 15,000 a year in tax. TMPY: 85,000

150,000 a year. 17.5% = 26,250 a year in tax. TMPY: 123,750

200,000 a year. 18.25% = 36,500 a year in tax. TMPY: 163,500

There, some less rough figures for you fuckers. You make more = you pay more in tax, but not to a point where you cease to make money since the rate is always increasing. Let's say Billy Gates makes 4 billion this year, he's still only going to pay around 20-25%.

If that would be implamented with correct figures, poor people wouldn't get the shaft, and rich people would still be pretty damned rich. (You think taking 1 billion out of 4 for the year is really going to stop Mr. Billy from getting that new Porshe? Don't think so.)

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Jaredster
it was increasing by multiples of 2^x, no 2x... but still its stupid, lets forget about it.

I agree, this makes my head hurt.

EXTREMELY rough numbers need to at least have the right idea going... this is more like EXTREMELY wrong numbers. They not only are off (like ROUGH would imply), but they flip flop!

I agree with this too.

If that would be implamented with correct figures, poor people wouldn't get the shaft, and rich people would still be pretty damned rich. (You think taking 1 billion out of 4 for the year is really going to stop Mr. Billy from getting that new Porshe? Don't think so.)

That is a messed up way of thinking. That makes me sick. It's not even or fair.

[AVataRR]

bleh, you blows can be so god damned boring. who'da thunk it. talking taxation in atrip. the discussion should be going like this:

John Kerry walks into a bar. The bar tender asks: "Why the long face?"

AHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA!#)(*&#()& Joke stolen from Letterman. :)

[TopSecretBoy]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
That is a messed up way of thinking. That makes me sick. It's not even or fair.


Oh, ok. Then we'll just have everyone pay the same 10% (Or whatever) tax. That way The people who are barely standing on their feet get fucked, and Billy (Who just bought the new Porshe) can't get some sick 22' spinners.

*Edit*

Freak, you come from a rich family, don't you. :)

[Smapdey]

Taxes are bit higher than you guys think. And that scale compresses as it gets bigger.

Yeah, freak hasn't had to work yet.

[TopSecretBoy]

Originally posted by Smapdey
And that scale compresses as it gets bigger.

As far as I can tell, it's the only way I can think of to make the middle class grow and the extremes shrink, is to compress as it goes up.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by TopSecretBoy
As far as I can tell, it's the only way I can think of to make the middle class grow and the extremes shrink, is to compress as it goes up.

Why does the middle class need to grow? The way I see it, some people are destined to be poor, some middleclass, and some rich. Anyone that wants it bad enough can make something of themselves in the US, we don't need a taxation program that favors the poor and lower-middle-class to try to make things even for everyone.

[cr3am]

Originally posted by TopSecretBoy
get some sick 22' spinners. 22 foot spinners? Sick, dude, totally sick.

[Yian]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
Why does the middle class need to grow? The way I see it, some people are destined to be poor, some middleclass, and some rich. Anyone that wants it bad enough can make something of themselves in the US, we don't need a taxation program that favors the poor and lower-middle-class to try to make things even for everyone.
Of course it is not necessary for any adjustment. There are different people in the US, and some poeple feel that as a more developed, more advanced civilization, we should try to make the society a better place for everyone, even the poor people, who might be just misfortunate for now, or just lack the spirit of competition. Of course, there are other people think that as long as their life is comfortable, keep the poor pathetic and kep the rich richer. It is perfectly fine. There are good people and there are selfish people, and they all have the rights to be the kind of people they want.

[TopSecretBoy]

Originally posted by Yian
Of course it is not necessary for any adjustment. There are different people in the US, and some poeple feel that as a more developed, more advanced civilization, we should try to make the society a better place for everyone, even the poor people, who might be just misfortunate for now, or just lack the spirit of competition. Of course, there are other people think that as long as their life is comfortable, keep the poor pathetic and kep the rich richer. It is perfectly fine. There are good people and there are selfish people, and they all have the rights to be the kind of people they want.

Damn Yian, I couldn't flame you if I was the Devil.

[Hobbes874]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
Why does the middle class need to grow? The way I see it, some people are destined to be poor, some middleclass, and some rich. Anyone that wants it bad enough can make something of themselves in the US, we don't need a taxation program that favors the poor and lower-middle-class to try to make things even for everyone.
Well, there is always going to be poor people but having more rich/middle class people is awsome for the economy, because they spend money whereas the poor spends much much less.

[Smapdey]

Well, partially, having people that spend more money is better, whether they're rich or poor.

[Yian]

You guys all should know by now that I like to speculate things. Speculation raises debates, and some healthy political discussion is both constructive and fun.

And here is another of my speculation.

Suppose what Freak has said was partialy true, that Bush's plan was really indeed restoring the economy, what would the Democrats do if they know it for a fact that Bush's plan will eventually show its effect, the economy would be boosted and Bush's rating will go up, what would they do in order to win the race?

How about a really big scandal, so no one pays attention to the economy's progress? After all, it is all the news media that's telling us how good or bad the economy. So if the news report less about the job creation, but more about how bad things are getting right, wouldn't that benefit Kerry?

So, instead of attacking aggressively towards Bush, Kerry just lay low, and let scandals destry Bush's administration.

Could it be possible that, the prisoner abuse was staged to certain degree, so Bush's rating continue to slip?

What are you guys' thoughts on this?

[DanTheMan]

When was the last time we had a perfect president? Bush likes to start wars, Clinton liked gettin BJ's in the Oval Office, Bush Sr. raised taxes after he said he wouldn't, etc. I have mixed feelings about Bush. He has certainly done more for our military then Clinton did, but going to war over *possible* reasons and risking soldiers lives, some of them my friends, doesn't sit well for me. Kerry really hasn't done a lot of publicity stunts lately, so I don't really have an opinion on him.

As far as the rich/poor discussion goes, shit happens in life. It takes hard work to pull yourself out of rags and into a good life. I used to live in a mexican ghetto in San Diego, but now I live in a nice house. I really don't have a lot of sympathy for a bum on the street, there are a lot of places that can help them out. As far as taxation goes, rich people should be taxed more, common sense. A poor man can't afford to pay 10 grand to the government, a rich guy can shit 10 grand and not even blink.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Yian
You guys all should know by now that I like to speculate things. Speculation raises debates, and some healthy political discussion is both constructive and fun.

And here is another of my speculation.

Suppose what Freak has said was partialy true, that Bush's plan was really indeed restoring the economy, what would the Democrats do if they know it for a fact that Bush's plan will eventually show its effect, the economy would be boosted and Bush's rating will go up, what would they do in order to win the race?

How about a really big scandal, so no one pays attention to the economy's progress? After all, it is all the news media that's telling us how good or bad the economy. So if the news report less about the job creation, but more about how bad things are getting right, wouldn't that benefit Kerry?

So, instead of attacking aggressively towards Bush, Kerry just lay low, and let scandals destry Bush's administration.

Could it be possible that, the prisoner abuse was staged to certain degree, so Bush's rating continue to slip?

What are you guys' thoughts on this?

I think that's what Kerry is doing, laying low. I would like to see him run his campaign on himself instead of running it on how bad Bush is. I think Kerry is concentrating his efforts and huge finincial capabillities on making Bush look as bad as possible, and take attention away from himself. Anytime Kerry is in the spotlight he looks like a flipflopping brainless people-pleasing puppet.

[Smapdey]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
I think that's what Kerry is doing, laying low. I would like to see him run his campaign on himself instead of running it on how bad Bush is. I think Kerry is concentrating his efforts and huge finincial capabillities on making Bush look as bad as possible, and take attention away from himself. Anytime Kerry is in the spotlight he looks like a flipflopping brainless people-pleasing puppet.

Kerry doesn't need to show how bad Bush is.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Smapdey
Kerry doesn't need to show how bad Bush is.

That's highly debateable.

[Smapdey]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
That's highly debateable.

The motherfucker has started an unjust war in a foriegn country. A war which might get our asses fuckin' shot at all over black stuff that comes out of the ground and lines his pocket. Technically, the actions that he took, an unprovoked attack, is a war crime. It is my belief that he should be tried. He's done jackshit for this country, he's a god damn fool, I could repair the economy quicker, he's violated the civil liberties of countless thousands, and he runs a corrupt cabinet that lies to America and the rest of the world. Let't not forget the dead he's left in his wake, or the other scandals I could mention. The guy doesn't need to be painted as a villian, he'll do it himself.

Further more, why not trying to think on your fucking own for a change?

[Shadow]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
That's highly debateable.

Not really. The losing side (People who think Bush is a smart, thinking man) has about ... zero arguments on their side. The winning side (Anyone who can think), know that Bush is a complete and utter idiot, who has done only bad, and is a total MORON!

[cr3am]

Originally posted by Shadow
The losing side (People who think Bush is a smart, thinking man) has about ... zero arguments on their side. The winning side (Anyone who can think), know that Bush is a complete and utter idiot, who has done only bad, and is a total MORON! Amen.

[ghiop]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
I think Kerry is concentrating his efforts and huge finincial capabillities on making Bush look as bad as possible, and take attention away from himself.

Bush has gone negative, coincidentally. He's not exactly campaigning on positive qualities. Read his speeches, read Cheney's speeches, read the speeches from the RNC. They aren't exactly positive. I mean, christ, they've gone negative on John McCain, and he's in their own party.

And it's nice to see you kids are still feisty.:)

[WhoGivesARatsAss]

Is this about politics.. now there are two discussions I can't take part in.. Intelligent ones and politics! Everything else is a piece of cake for me!

[jesuskingofpeace]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
I agree with what you are saying partly, but the rich need a tax break just as others do. They work hard to earn *edit* money, and I don't like the fact that the poor don't pay any. Really, it should be a flat percentage of people of all income levels to make things truely fair.

yeah, the poor are just lazy and stupiiiiid.

I'm making fun of you freak cuz ur such an idiot.

[Yian]

A good system should not be based on any standard that emphasize fairness. What people really need should be a system that provide services to those who needs it the most. This is the basic concept of resource allocation, which is one of the fundamental reason for the existence of a government body - to oversee the distribution of goods and the management of resources.

If a flat tax rate can really solve the problem, it will also reflect a economy system without wage growth, without inflation of the currency, which are signs of a closed-space economy, with everything a flat rate. But US trade with other nations lots and often, which mean the currency rate is not fixed, and the amount of gold determine the wealth of the nation. These varialbes eventually lead to a economy system that works exponatially, instead of a flat line.

And when the resource allocation is not even, inflation becomes a problem. Normally, inflation would not be an issue because theoratically the income rates raise steadly as well, but if certain amount of currency in the system is reserved at one level or the out put at one level doesn't catch up, inflation could easily surpass the wages. The easiest way to cause this to happen would be a tax cut: no matter which class receive a tax cut, it impact the entire system.

Bush administration acclaimed that by giving the rich tax relief, it helps the economy recover. This theory is oddly against all common knowledge of currency circulation, and is really something totally unheard of. I am not quite sure the logic behind this policy, but the result is quite obvious: the act has given an instant boost of job oppurtunities for the past 3 month. But my point stands true: with more capitals, corporations, which are based on stock markets more than anything else, now has chances to increase its output of previous campaigne that might have been haulted by the shortagd of capitals, but the job's pay stay the same... getting a job but still not being able to afford the prices of daily goods is a sign of a extremely streched economy, especially now when the rich gets tax cuts.

[Hobbes874]

Originally posted by Smapdey
Kerry doesn't need to show how bad Bush is.
I agree, the Bush anti-kerry campaigns are so pathetic, they contradict everything they say, it's fucking annoying. Making a campaign against Bush would be so easy, someone shoudn't even get paid to do it, because there is so much out there riding against him.

[Vraylle]

Sorry, couldn't stay a lurker on this one (howdy all).

A quote comes to mind: "I love democracy. It's the only form of government even remotely worth a damn, because it's the only one that guarantees that the people get exactly what they deserve."

The only catch is that we don't live in a democracy...it's a republic. That's an important distinction that a lot of people forget.

On the tax discussion, here's my plan for you guys to rend into small bloody bits:
10% of income, with a cutoff at an "official" poverty level that varies by geographic location (and hence the costs of living).
NO other taxes of any kind, at any level of government. No sales, property, import, etc.
The federal government gets 20% of this tax revenue.
The state gets 40% of tax revenue.
The county gets %20 of tax revenue.
The city gets %20 of tax revenue.
Of course, this level of federal funding only works if limits its activities to those that are constitutionally mandated...provide for the common defense, conduct foreign policy, and settle disputes between the states...rather than using the latter mandate as an excuse to sink its tentacles into everything.

I'll stop here before I start raving about my twisted ideas on general government policies and economics. :)

[Trustkill]

No way, go on. You have my attention.

Democracy, Republic, Communism, whatever. Anything can be a good idea but at the epicenter of all of these is the human race. The bad seeds that make up the majority of us find loop holes or just blatantly create them with the sole purpose of expanding their power over other human beings. We all have this drive in us, but being a peon of society without the strings of the sheep to pull on we are scaled down to seeing things on the most basic of human levels and are not blinded by what the massive amount of power held by political figures. We are cattle feeding those in the government and we are seen that way by them. The line is thick between us and the gods they think they have become and these ideas of other governments are necessarily just ways of limiting the amount of power they can achieve. Even the the most promising governments will become corrupt and totalitarian and the US gov'ts facade' is one of the most believable out there.

Switching gov'ts is like deciding between a hooker with syphilis and a hooker with AIDs. Either way your fucked.

[TooDrunkToFunk]

vraylle,

i don't think that a 10% income tax, without any other taxation, would sustain the u.s.; never mind positive growth.

let's say a $33,600 (gdp) x 294 million americans = 9.88 trillion total income / 10 = 988 billion as tax revenue ($3,360 per person).

do you feel that the total tax revenue would be able to pay for the 'constitutionally mandated' expenditures when the spending in the military (the latest admin's) alone accounts for ~400 billion dollars ? it traditionally hovers between 22-30% of total budgetary expenditures, and spending is growing every year.

what about social security, health and human services or agriculture ?

what about the federal debt ? the amount per person is $24,500.

[Vraylle]

10% just might do the trick, given the caveat I included...since the government would then be merely a tiny shadow of the lumbering oaf it is now.

And I really don't see how it relates to "positive growth," except that it leaves more money in the free market and out of politician's grubby little hands.
do you feel that the total tax revenue would be able to pay for the 'constitutionally mandated' expenditures when the spending in the military (the latest admin's) alone accounts for ~400 billion dollars ? it traditionally hovers between 22-30% of total budgetary expenditures, and spending is growing every year.
Quite true about the current state of the military budget, but I ask you: how much of that budget is purely constitutional in nature? We spend an awful lot of money fighting other people's wars for them. Now, I'm not going to say that it's morally wrong to do so...in fact I would say that as the sole superpower with such means as we have that we have an ethical obligation to do what we can, where we can. But that's not a job assigned by the U. S. Constitution directly.
what about social security, health and human services or agriculture ?
Constitutionally, those are not the duties of the federal government, so no issue. :)

That's what charity is for. In fact this leads me to another rant that I'll cover at the end.
what about the federal debt ? the amount per person is $24,500.
Which we wouldn't have if the government did only what it was truly tasked to do. The previously mentioned "tentacles" put that debt in place.

Now for my charity rant:

<rant>

I love charities. I donate to them myself (combinations of old clothes, wads of cash, and the sweat on my brow, as my assets allow). Local churches can do wonders to help single parents find jobs, keep kids out of trouble, rehabilitate addicts and criminals, and so much more. So can local non-religious organizations, though there are far fewer of them. (And before somebody goes off and reads this as support for federally funded churches...I'm a Pagan.)

But there's the problem with this system, and the problem is the biggest charity of them all: The United States government.
Once upon a time, it behooved you to maintain good relationships with your family, work to stay married, know your neighbors, go to church...whatever made and kept you a part of the community. It was in your self-interest, for if you fell on hard times, these were the people that would help you through...and you'd do the same for them in return.

Now, the government will pick up your slack. As a consequence, few people bother to maintain those bonds, and the sorry current state of society is the result. Why maintain good rapport with your neighbors when the feds will give you far more food and money than they ever would or could?

I tought in public school for several years, and saw this attitude a frightening amount. Some parents even told me this directly. Their families were a wreck, and society is only a large collection of families.

</end rant>

[Blackheart66]

Throughout all of the debates about this war, I can only really think of one thing. Why do we have to lose so many lives over Bush's ignorant quest to finish what his daddy couldn't and how this is just a grab for oil. We all know that the government positions recently set up will not even have a fraction of the power given to the oil magistrate (not sure the exact title) in Iraq. The whole basis for the Republican ideal is care about yourself and don't give a shit about anyone else. This is exactly why this country's morals are going downhill fast. Most people could care less about society and their fellow man. If people would just wake up and use some common sense and simple moral values, then there would be no question that the current administration needs to be booted out fast before they can do any more damage. I guess the old addage is true... ignorance is bliss. :(

[TooDrunkToFunk]

ahh... but the constitution allows for the bloated bureaucracy that you have, unless you truly want to do away with all governmental servants and services (though the tax payer will still have to pay the pres., vp., senators, governers, the judiciary, and all associated forums, etc) not specified in article i, section 8 (etc.); if so, what do you propose takes it's place, ie. how does social security, health and human services, agriculture, etc. continue to benefit the people upon whose back the nation resides ? does the federal republic then become an argentocracy, a corpocracy, a plutocracy, or a quangocracy ?

'positive growth' is literally what i mean: improvements to the system in all ways. do you feel that more money in the free market is a good thing ?; money in the 'free market' inevitably moves in only one direction (hint: it's not down ;)).

the united states does act on other nations behalf (whether it is invited or not :(), but wars, or large-scale military conflicts, are almost always in the united states' interest. do you propose that the u.s. adheres to art. i, sect. 8, clause 11-16, exclusively ? remember the tremendous amount of money that is made in the military industrial complex (though that is a contentious issue for many, including myself); 'war is good for business', as they say ;).

if the u.s. were to enact a new system based on your suggestions, you would still have the staggering debt. how do you propose it is paid in full ?

holy fuck !!! off to a warm bed i go :)

[Vraylle]

The constitution itself doesn't allow for a lot of what the federal government does now...liberal judicial interpretation has done that (liberal in an apolitical sense). This interpretation has been fueled by the corruption of having too much money and power in the first place.

You ask who would handle "social security, health and human services, agriculture." My response is that for the purposes of this theoretical discussion...nobody. The federal government does not have a constitutional mandate or authority to provide these services, period. They do this now under the auspices of regulating "interstate commerce". From a purely constitutional point of view, these functions belong to the states, if anybody.

And yes, I do feel that more money in the free market is a good thing. But we don't have a free market. A free market doesn't have tariffs or government subsidies, for example. And yes, the money does go up, but it also goes down, or sideways, or any other direction toward the people willing to work for it.

You ask if I propose strict adherence to the consitution...and the answer is yes. The government should follow the rules. If the public doesn't like those rules, the public can change them to allow the government to act in non-defensive self interest, act as an imperial power, or be a massive social security program for the entire world. Whatever...I just want the actions of my government supported by its own laws.

As for the debt you keep mentioning....pay it off. That would hurt the primary functions of government, but I don't have any sympathy. The nation has been fiscally stupid, and the bill has to be paid sometime.

[TooDrunkToFunk]

easy man, i'm not arguing with you :) i'm intrigued by what you have said, and i am trying to look at your concept realistically.

of course the constitution doesn't allow for much of what modern american society (or better, bureaucracy) allows for, however, what's done is done right ? i'm trying to work your ideas into reality as it stands, not reality as a constitutional ideal.

so you propose that social security, health, agriculture, infrastructure, etc. (sorry to keep using those, but they take up the most money) be handled privately ?

do you restrict the salaries of those in government ?

what about the burgeoning gap between the top 1% and all the rest ? do we allow it to continue it's natural course, vis-a-vis an unfeterred free market ? do we limit the gains of the top 1% so that others have a fair chance ? enlighten me, friend, because most money does goes up.

i fully agree that a government should adhere to it's mandate, constitution, bill-of-rights, etc.

could you clarify how the debt is paid ?

[Vraylle]

"Easy"? I'm not exactly "riled up." :)

of course the constitution doesn't allow for much of what modern american society (or better, bureaucracy) allows for, however, what's done is done right ? i'm trying to work your ideas into reality as it stands, not reality as a constitutional ideal.
Ah, there's the glitch in this line of discussion...I'm talking more about the original intent of the constitution, and you're taking more of a "what now." approach. I'll try your tack for a bit.
so you propose that social security, health, agriculture, infrastructure, etc. (sorry to keep using those, but they take up the most money) be handled privately ?
Not privately, necessarily. I think that's the state's job, if any layer of government simply MUST do it. Otherwise, yes, leave it to family and community. People will tend to behave a bit better, for one thing.
do you restrict the salaries of those in government ?
Yes. Originally, elected offices were unpaid positions. The drawback of that approach is that it ensures only the rich get into office, a prime reason for the implementation of salaries in the first place. They should be a paid position, but they shouldn't pay much. Tie it to something else...like, say, average public school teacher salary (that would have an interesting result).
what about the burgeoning gap between the top 1% and all the rest ? do we allow it to continue it's natural course, vis-a-vis an unfeterred free market ? do we limit the gains of the top 1% so that others have a fair chance ? enlighten me, friend, because most money does goes up.
I hate to break it to you, but there will ALWAYS be that top 1% with 95% or more of the total wealth. A truly socialist system would, in theory, spread the money evenly. In practice, it has historically put 95% of the wealth in 1% of the hands, under the auspices that it's "for the people". In a free market the excuse is "it's my money, I earned/stole it"...which is at least honest. There will always be haves/have nots, because some people work harder or are smarter/luckier/sneakier than others. If you have a solution that none of these people could find a loophole through, I'd be very happy to hear it. The only systems I've seen inevitably punish those who are simply smarter or work harder.
could you clarify how the debt is paid ?
Just like any person pays it off: you don't buy other things until you pay it off. Painful if you've been managing your money badly, but simple.

[DanTheMan]

Originally posted by Blackheart66
Throughout all of the debates about this war, I can only really think of one thing. Why do we have to lose so many lives over Bush's ignorant quest to finish what his daddy couldn't and how this is just a grab for oil. We all know that the government positions recently set up will not even have a fraction of the power given to the oil magistrate (not sure the exact title) in Iraq. The whole basis for the Republican ideal is care about yourself and don't give a shit about anyone else. This is exactly why this country's morals are going downhill fast. Most people could care less about society and their fellow man. If people would just wake up and use some common sense and simple moral values, then there would be no question that the current administration needs to be booted out fast before they can do any more damage. I guess the old addage is true... ignorance is bliss. :(

Reread what you just said.

Ignorance is bliss indeed.

[TooDrunkToFunk]

i really should have changed the initial wording of my 2nd post in this thread; it was only after posting it and before my 3rd post, that i made the wise decision to re-read your constitution :o.

can we get a big duh! here ?

so if the state handles the management of the 'societal net', how does it get funded ? is it by the 40% of the 10% as you initially proposed ?

based on the myriad of abuses i've seen up here - with federal healthcare supported by a subtle 2-tiered system, people holding up the e.r. with minor problems, the endless array of people that have made serious lifestyle choices that inevitably lead to serious health problems, etc. - i do believe that there needs to be more personal accountability when it comes to your own well being.

mate, i AM aware of the nature of this beast we call the 'free market', but i take a different stance... we should handicap the gains of those at the top, not the bottom (though i don't encourage wastrel's).

it'll work on a slding scale, as you ascend the ranks of those most priveleged, those most benefitted by the earnings off the rest of the people, then the onus is increasingly on you to contribute more to the betterment of society as a whole; we could call it 'obligational philanthropy' ;).

the bottom line: the rich shouldn't continue to get richer just because they are already rich, ie. they should not be able to live comfortably just on the accruing interest of their savings.

[greymeister]

I'd just like to add a few things of my own. First, I'm glad to see that unlike many forums I visit there seems to be some air of competency in the political spectrum, and the majority of people I've seen post have a good grasp on the current US election situation.

I'm a CS/History person, so I'm not an economist or a political scientist, but I can tell you a few things. First of all, about the Republican ideal, which has been floating around like a big turd since Reagan, called "Trickle-down" economics. This does not work at all, as has proven time and time again. Given three divisions of class (upper/lower/middling) an upper-class taxcut will not increase spending in the economy, it is actually detrimental to spending. The basic maxim of capitalism is to take money and use it to get more, the upper classes generally keep bedfellows of their bankers, that is to say, they will prosper greater by saving than spending. The lower classes also do not spend much, because their income is close to subsistance, thus they must spend on necessities and do not engage in commerce that will help the economy. The middling classes, however, tend to spend greater proportionally than the other two. This can be attributed to a greater sense of mobility, but that argument would be better made by an economist. The point is that the middle class spending is what will drive an economy, not what has been the Republican mantra for the last 20 years.

[TRUCKIN]

ha! kerry is such a communist. He quoted Langston Hughes who is a communist but of course kerry dosn't tell you that. When kerry quoted langston hughes poem where we find the line "let america be america agian!" he forgot to tell you that the poem was about communism. A vote for the democrat party is a vote for communism. You can not argue with these facts.

[Hobbes874]

Communism is cool, and just because he quotes a communist doesn't make him evil :rolleyes:

[TRUCKIN]

Its people like you too hobbes. You forget to tell us that in Communism you have little or no freedoms. This is exactly what democrats want, a minority (consisting of rich ass politicians) want to rule the majority (we the people).

[future man]

Far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter who wins the election, it'll be pretty much the fucking same as it always is. I'm voting for Gordon Freeman.

[Smapdey]

Wow Truckin, you've managed to get rid of all respect I ever had for you to begin with. Not that I haven't always thought you were a mindless sack of shit anyways.

Just because he quotes a poem doesn't mean he's a communist. That's like saying that I'm exactly like Jesus just because I've read the bible and quoted it. Yeah, I'm the next messiah because I understand the bible.

Did daddy skullfuck you when mommy was a preggo?

And, you stupid piece of shit, rich minority ruling the masses is the fucking republicans you cross-eyed dizzy shit motherfucker. Besides, the Republicans are essentially the worst on the economy, Reagan was one of the worst presidents we ever had (Russia went through internal change, we did little or nothing) and he turned us from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation. You're a fool to think any different.

Oh, and as for freedoms, let's not get started on the patriot act that Osama bin Ashcroft has given us to protect our freedoms by stripping them away from us.

This nation has become a sham.

Future man is right though, we're fucked either way, voting is for saps.

[future man]

You could vote for me, I'm starting a "Drop all the bombs" party, because all of you suck ass.

[DanTheMan]

Originally posted by Smapdey
Wow Truckin, you've managed to get rid of all respect I ever had for you to begin with. Not that I haven't always thought you were a mindless sack of shit anyways.

Just because he quotes a poem doesn't mean he's a communist. That's like saying that I'm exactly like Jesus just because I've read the bible and quoted it. Yeah, I'm the next messiah because I understand the bible.

Did daddy skullfuck you when mommy was a preggo?

And, you stupid piece of shit, rich minority ruling the masses is the fucking republicans you cross-eyed dizzy shit motherfucker. Besides, the Republicans are essentially the worst on the economy, Reagan was one of the worst presidents we ever had (Russia went through internal change, we did little or nothing) and he turned us from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation. You're a fool to think any different.

Oh, and as for freedoms, let's not get started on the patriot act that Osama bin Ashcroft has given us to protect our freedoms by stripping them away from us.

This nation has become a sham.

Future man is right though, we're fucked either way, voting is for saps.

Ha, if I'm not mistaken Kerry himself is worth billions (well, his wife is anyways). Most politicians nowadays aren't your down to earth folk. Most of them got by with the silver spoon in their mouth. As far as Ronald Reagan goes, he was a shitload better than Jimmy Carter, and he rebuilt our military, so I respect him for that. I do agree with you on the Patriot Act, that is a crock of shit. It seems the trend today is to sacrifice freedom for security. Hell, police can now arrest and book you if you refuse to identify yourself. So really, this election year is not going to be that exciting. Bush likes invading countries, and Kerry is a major flipflopper. Either way, we're fucked.

[TRUCKIN]

so smap, how exactly does it take our rights away?

[Smapdey]

Why don't you read this: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php

Expanded Surveillance With Reduced Checks and Balances. USAPA expands all four traditional tools of surveillance -- wiretaps, search warrants, pen/trap orders and subpoenas. Their counterparts under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allow spying in the U.S. by foreign intelligence agencies have similarly been expanded. This means:
Be careful what you put in that Google search. The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans, including terms entered into search engines, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. This application must be granted and the government is not obligated to report to the court or tell the person spied upon what it has done.
Nationwide roving wiretaps. FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an order. The government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named in the order. The government need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal investigation. In the pen/trap or FISA situations, they do not even have to report where they served the order or what information they received. The EFF believes that the opportunities for abuse of these broad new powers are immense. For pen/trap orders, ISPs or others who are not named in the do have authority under the law to request certification from the Attorney General's office that the order applies to them, but they do not have the authority to request such confirmation from a court.
ISPs hand over more user information. The law makes two changes to increase how much information the government may obtain about users from their ISPs or others who handle or store their online communications. First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all "non-content" information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. sec. 212. Second, it expands the records that the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses; means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers. secs. 210, 211.
New definitions of terrorism expand scope of surveillance. One new definition of terrorism and three expansions of previous terms also expand the scope of surveillance. They are 1) § 802 definition of "domestic terrorism" (amending 18 USC §2331), which raises concerns about legitimate protest activity resulting in conviction on terrorism charges, especially if violence erupts; adds to 3 existing definition of terrorism (int'l terrorism per 18 USC §2331, terrorism transcending national borders per 18 USC §2332b, and federal terrorism per amended 18 USC §2332b(g)(5)(B)). These new definitions also expose more people to surveillance (and potential "harboring" and "material support" liability, §§ 803, 805).
Overbreadth with a lack of focus on terrorism. Several provisions of the USAPA have no apparent connection to preventing terrorism. These include:
Government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court order. Sec. 217.
Adding samples to DNA database for those convicted of "any crime of violence." Sec. 503. The provision adds collection of DNA for terrorists, but then inexplicably also adds collection for the broad, non-terrorist category of "any crime of violence."
Wiretaps now allowed for suspected violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes anyone suspected of "exceeding the authority" of a computer used in interstate commerce, causing over $5000 worth of combined damage.
Dramatic increases to the scope and penalties of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes: 1) raising the maximum penalty for violations to 10 years (from 5) for a first offense and 20 years (from 10) for a second offense; 2) ensuring that violators only need to intend to cause damage generally, not intend to cause damage or other specified harm over the $5,000 statutory damage threshold; 3) allows aggregation of damages to different computers over a year to reach the $5,000 threshold; 4) enhance punishment for violations involving any (not just $5,000) damage to a government computer involved in criminal justice or the military; 5) include damage to foreign computers involved in US interstate commerce; 6) include state law offenses as priors for sentencing; 7) expand definition of loss to expressly include time spent investigating, responding, for damage assessment and for restoration.
Allows Americans to be More Easily Spied Upon by US Foreign Intelligence Agencies. Just as the domestic law enforcement surveillance powers have expanded, the corollary powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act have also been greatly expanded, including:
General Expansion of FISA Authority. FISA authority to spy on Americans or foreign persons in the US (and those who communicate with them) increased from situations where the suspicion that the person is the agent of a foreign government is "the" purpose of the surveillance to anytime that this is "a significant purpose" of the surveillance.
Increased information sharing between domestic law enforcement and intelligence. This is a partial repeal of the wall put up in the 1970s after the discovery that the FBI and CIA had been conducting investigations on over half a million Americans during the McCarthy era and afterwards, including the pervasive surveillance of Martin Luther King in the 1960s. It allows wiretap results and grand jury information and other information collected in a criminal case to be disclosed to the intelligence agencies when the information constitutes foreign intelligence or foreign intelligence information, the latter being a broad new category created by this law.
FISA detour around federal domestic surveillance limitations; domestic detour around FISA limitations. Domestic surveillance limits can be skirted by the Attorney General, for instance, by obtaining a FISA wiretap against a US person where "probable cause" does not exist, but when the person is suspected to be an agent of a foreign government. The information can then be shared with the FBI. The reverse is also true.

[DanTheMan]

Holy crap you have got to be kidding me. I would suggest reading this, it summerizes it nicely: Patriot Act Analysis (http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html)

To sum it up, it allows the government to tap your phone, computer, and read your electronic mail without a warrant or your knowledge. Clearly that is a violation of the 4th Amendment, but of course, it's for our own safety.

Edit - Or read what Smap just posted, it's from the same source.

[Hobbes874]

Fact: Over New Year's, the FBI collected the names of 260,000 people staying at Las Vegas hotels.


More and more, at every level of society, the "Big Brother is watching you" style of total surveillance is slowly becoming a reality, because of the patriot act. It basically gives the government unlimited power over us. Perhaps if you opened your fucking eyes truckin you would've seen this, but I guess not because your another one of the ignorant.

[TRUCKIN]

So in other words if I were to search for "how to build an IED" then search for "military bases" I could be intercepted?

[Smapdey]

Basically.

[TRUCKIN]

Ok so what the fuck is the big deal then?

[DanTheMan]

Hmm, I guess you haven't read what Smappy said at all. If you look at the Bill of Rights, you will see the 4th Amendment, which states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now, when you look at the Patriot Act and see things such as:

Government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court order. (Sec. 217)

Government can get your ISP and all your information without a subpoena. (Sec. 212)

FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an order. (Sec. 201-202)

That to me is unreasonable search and seizure, and that is clearly forbidden under the Constitution.

[Roq]

doesnt spyware violate that?

[TRUCKIN]

Just don't do any thing a terrorist would do online or over the phone.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by TRUCKIN
Its people like you too hobbes. You forget to tell us that in Communism you have little or no freedoms. This is exactly what democrats want, a minority (consisting of rich ass politicians) want to rule the majority (we the people).

I'm not going to read all the shit in this thread, but I find this one interesting. That seems like the general idea with democrats, but maybe I'm missing something.

[Smapdey]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
I'm not going to read all the shit in this thread, but I find this one interesting. That seems like the general idea with democrats, but maybe I'm missing something.

Yeah, you're missing a big something, the Republicans are the rich minority, thus the upper class tax cuts and other bullshit. The Democrats are for the little guy mostly, IE social programs.

[Hobbes874]

"I hate America"













/Waits awhile























AW SHIT THEY'RE AT MY DOOR!!!

[TRUCKIN]

Originally posted by Smapdey
social programs. ... IE communism.

[Smapdey]

Originally posted by TRUCKIN
... IE communism.

Yes, social programs are just like communism. Public education is a social program, that's communist as fuck! Let's stop all social programs so that only the wealthy elite can afford to be educated! You'd probably have the same amount of intelligence.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Smapdey
Yes, social programs are just like communism. Public education is a social program, that's communist as fuck! Let's stop all social programs so that only the wealthy elite can afford to be educated! You'd probably have the same amount of intelligence.

I think he means for social programs that take from the rich and give to the poor in an effort to even things out. That is communistic in nature, schooling on the other hand wouldn't fall into this segment.

[Smapdey]

Why not? The rich are paying taxes to allow the poor to go to school? Isn't that communist? Doesn't that even us out?

The points being:
A) He's a retard.
B) You can find communism in everything.
C) We would be pretty fucked without it.

Freak and Truckin, you don't read much or watch CNN a lot, do you?

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Smapdey

Freak and Truckin, you don't read much or watch CNN a lot, do you?

Hells no, I watch Fox if anything, sometimes NBC. I read more than the average person, but not necessarily political books of political nature.

I have a question about the Patriot act and democrats. Do the democrats support this act or disapprove of it? And if they do dissaprove of it, do they have a better idea or are they just bashing it because Bush signed it?

[Hobbes874]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
Hells no, I watch Fox if anything
That explains a lot.

[Smapdey]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
Hells no, I watch Fox if anything, sometimes NBC. I read more than the average person, but not necessarily political books of political nature.

I have a question about the Patriot act and democrats. Do the democrats support this act or disapprove of it? And if they do dissaprove of it, do they have a better idea or are they just bashing it because Bush signed it?

I am by no means a democrat, I think both parties suck, but I'm with the Dems on this one, they disapprove, the thing is that we don't really need any of this stepped up security because it isn't really the answer. We're living in fear if we allow this to happen, this means that the terrorists have won because we're willing to give up our values out of the terror they instilled.

And stop pretending to have a clue what you're talking about, do you even know why you are a republican?

[cr3am]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
political books of political nature. :rolleyes:

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Smapdey
I am by no means a democrat, I think both parties suck, but I'm with the Dems on this one, they disapprove, the thing is that we don't really need any of this stepped up security because it isn't really the answer. We're living in fear if we allow this to happen, this means that the terrorists have won because we're willing to give up our values out of the terror they instilled.

And stop pretending to have a clue what you're talking about, do you even know why you are a republican?

I dissapprove of the patriot act too.

I support the republican party only because it has the fewest barriers to making money and I like what Bush is doing with the economy. Other than that, I think the Republican party stinks. At heart I support the Democratic party, but I can't stand the way they try to take money away from the wealthy. It makes me sick, and I can't support a party that does that.

[DanTheMan]

Both parties are freaking rich. Not a lot of poor politicians out there. If you guys can name one, I'll be surprised. I support some of the Republican viewpoints, but the Patriot Act is way out of line. I normally favor the party that improves benefits towards the military. What I don't like are programs like Social Security. Why the fuck should I get a free income at 65? Granted, some people do truely need that money to survive, but come on, not the whole damn country.

[cr3am]

The thing I don't like about social security is that I don't really plan to live past retiring age, and if I do, I already have some shit set up so that I won't need gub'ment money to keep me alive at that age.

But so what? I know shitloads of people in the country need that money, and I know that what I have setup might not be there, and I'll be damned if I don't have something to fall back on.

[Hobbes874]

Don't you guys think it's fucked up that we have a two party system? Cuz I sure do. I shouldn't work that way. People should be running for president not "Parties". All it does is divide us.

[karny]

Originally posted by Hobbes874
All it does is divide us.

It's classic divide and conqure tactics, clearly the nazi's are makeing their comeback by takeing over the US from the inside.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Hobbes874
Don't you guys think it's fucked up that we have a two party system? Cuz I sure do. I shouldn't work that way. People should be running for president not "Parties". All it does is divide us.

If there wasn't any division there would be too much agreement, and with too much agreement, bad laws would be passed. The more fighting the better to some extent that way nothing gets done and the less the government does the better IMHO.

[psydude20]

Originally posted by Smapdey
Yeah, you're missing a big something, the Republicans are the rich minority, thus the upper class tax cuts and other bullshit. The Democrats are for the little guy mostly, IE social programs.
Yeah he is. It's the republicans that are against social welfare for lower class citizens. I think he's got his parties confused. Hey, wouldn't it be funny if he had been voting for the wrong party all these years?

[psydude20]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
If there wasn't any division there would be too much agreement, and with too much agreement, bad laws would be passed. The more fighting the better to some extent that way nothing gets done and the less the government does the better IMHO.
Well a good president is one who looks past the party politics and looks out for the good of the country, for example Ike Eisenhower, JFK, Abraham Lincoln, ect. While television has helped to make communication easier it's also made politics too black and white.

[DanTheMan]

What I don't like about politics anymore is that it isn't a civil debate anymore. It used to be that you had a different opinion, and you argued, but you didn't rip the other guy's character. Nowadays, if you disagree with someone, your labeled the AntiChrist and called a babykiller (exaggeration, but you get the point). I wish all the character assassination shit would stop, but it won't. So fuck em both.

[TRUCKIN]

I don't see why anyone would want to vote for kerry. He isn't even in control of his own party. He is being used. Used by those crazy ass liberals like michael moore.

[Smapdey]

Bush is pretty much a puppet too here. Kerry flipflops a lot, but Edwards as his running mate, we've got a strong southern man at the helm again.

[Smapdey]

And I like the complete change of subject after defeat.

[Freakonaleash89]

I don't really think Bush cares as much about popular opinion as he does in doing what he thinks is the right thing. He might make more mistakes in his next term if he is elected, but he is a much stronger leader than Kerry will ever be.

[Smapdey]

Two things,

He has a pretty fucked up idea of what is the right thing.

We're a democracy, we're run on public opinion.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by Smapdey

We're a democracy, we're run on public opinion.

Not according to Bush. He seems to think we're run on what he thinks.

[future man]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
Not according to Bush. He seems to think we're run on what he thinks.

Who are you arguing for?

Anways, all of you fucking suck. Vote for future man!

[Smapdey]

Dude, Freak, just walk away. Really. You're looking like a jerk.

[Freakonaleash89]

Originally posted by future man
Who are you arguing for?


I wasn't arguing, I was just stating my opinion. I think Bush doesn't really care about what the majority wants, I think he cares about what he wants and what HE thinks is best for the country.

[DanTheMan]

Originally posted by Smapdey
Two things,

He has a pretty fucked up idea of what is the right thing.

We're a democracy, we're run on public opinion.

1. I guess so.
2. Public opinion is supposed to count, but it really doesn't.

[TooDrunkToFunk]

Originally posted by Freakonaleash89
I wasn't arguing, I was just stating my opinion. I think Bush doesn't really care about what the majority wants, I think he cares about what he wants and what HE thinks is best for the country.

you've hit the nail on the head, bud. quintessential republican policy (both domestic and foreign) is never about what the citizen feels is best; it's about hoarding wealth and power amongst the few, under the auspices of patriotism and democracy, while keeping the people in check with religion, consumerism and fear.

insularity rules.

[TRUCKIN]

John Kerry is such an asshole. He said he will make the U.S. Military second to none.

[TRUCKIN]

Originally posted by TooDrunkToFunk
you've hit the nail on the head, bud. quintessential republican policy (both domestic and foreign) is never about what the citizen feels is best; it's about hoarding wealth and power amongst the few, under the auspices of patriotism and democracy, while keeping the people in check with religion, consumerism and fear.

insularity rules. I love how people say the republicans are all big bussiness and what not. Bush is worth $10 million, Cheney (im not quite sure) $70 million. Kerry, $1 billion, Edwards, $50 million. So you got the richer assed folks on the demo cratic side and theyre party slogan is all like "were just like the working folks of america!"

[Smapdey]

Originally posted by TRUCKIN
I love how people say the republicans are all big bussiness and what not. Bush is worth $10 million, Cheney (im not quite sure) $70 million. Kerry, $1 billion, Edwards, $50 million. So you got the richer assed folks on the demo cratic side and theyre party slogan is all like "were just like the working folks of america!"

Sources?

[DanTheMan]

Um, Kerry is married to Teresa Heinz, who is worth mega bucks. Don't know about the rest, but Kerry is a billionare thanks to his wife.

[Hobbes874]

Phish, fuck this!









TERRY TATE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!








And I'm not joking, I would vote for him. He's way cooler than any dumb rich white guy.

[cr3am]

Is that why Bush has buttloads of Haloburton stock and gave Haloburton the contract to rebuild Iraq without auctioning for the best price? right. I'm sure he's only worth 10 million.

[future man]

Originally posted by cr3am
Is that why Bush has buttloads of Haloburton stock and gave Haloburton the contract to rebuild Iraq without auctioning for the best price? right. I'm sure he's only worth 10 million.

Haloburton huh? Anyway, as far as I've read, I thought only C