[ms] · Est. May 2002
One durable person. One social graph. Many communities—and every way people speak, share, listen, write, gather and remember.
Who do the terrorists want to win the election? Kerry. If that's the case, then vote Bush. If Kerry wins, terrorists all over the globe will be celebrating.
And most important to me is taxes. Bush will lower my taxes and Kerry will raise them. They already take to much out of my damn paycheck already and I don't need them taking out more.
Re: Bush vs Kerry
If you've been talking to terrorists about the elections I really think you should tell the authorities... :WinkNSmi:
Re: Bush vs Kerry
[quote=superdave";p="65901]Who do the terrorists want to win the election? Kerry. If that's the case, then vote Bush. If Kerry wins, terrorists all over the globe will be celebrating.
And most important to me is taxes. Bush will lower my taxes and Kerry will raise them. They already take to much out of my damn paycheck already and I don't need them taking out more.[/quote]
there has been more terrorists recruited while bush has been in offiice, he's like that army recruiter we had in highschool.
superdave, do you make more then $200,000 a year? cause if you don't kerry isn't planning on raising your taxes.
Re: Bush vs Kerry
[quote=superdave";p="65901]Who do the terrorists want to win the election? Kerry. If that's the case, then vote Bush. If Kerry wins, terrorists all over the globe will be celebrating. [/quote]
Where do you get this? The terrorists don't give a flying fig who our president is. They are not rational and will hate us and our way of life no matter who is leading the charge.
[quote=superdave";p="65901] And most important to me is taxes. Bush will lower my taxes and Kerry will raise them. They already take to much out of my damn paycheck already and I don't need them taking out more.[/quote]
What do you intend to do with that extra money? Hope you don't decide to invest it -- the Dow is lower today than it was when Bush took office. I'll trade a little less in my pocket each month for a strong economy that enables my investments to prosper, allows me to feel good about my job security, and allows my employer to feel good about giving me raises each year.
I agree with the whole "vote your wallet" idea -- I do it myself. It is a bigger question, though, than whether your tax burden goes up or down a few dollars a year.
the real answer is simple. Bush has thrown antiamerican hatred to record levels around the world. (world being everywhere else, not just europe) Far more people hate your country now than they ever did before. More hatred of americans = more terrorism. Its the honest truth. Vote for bush and expect to get bombed.
God this is the worst post yet. Terrorists arent scared of bush, they arent scared of you. They are obviously willing to give their lives for their cause. So what do they have to be scared of? They hate bush and another election is only ammo for recruitment. You really dont have a grasp of reality dude sorry.
Re: Bush vs Kerry
Toasty has got it 100% right - It could be Kerry, Bush, or the Olsen Twins and terrorists will still hate [i]Westerners[/i] just the same - don't fool yourself into thinking that all this hatred is geared only towards the US. These rats don't care who the president is, they will continue to spew their venom as long as they have the means to do so.
[quote]there has been more terrorists recruited while bush has been in offiice, he's like that army recruiter we had in highschool. [/quote]
:?:
Where the hell did you get that one? Any stats you'd like to share to support that claim?
Re: Bush vs Kerry
[quote=superdave";p="65901]Who do the terrorists want to win the election? Kerry. If that's the case, then vote Bush. If Kerry wins, terrorists all over the globe will be celebrating.
And most important to me is taxes. Bush will lower my taxes and Kerry will raise them. They already take to much out of my damn paycheck already and I don't need them taking out more.[/quote]
So you think Kerry will raise them??? Who really knows...but I do know this...lets just elect Bush again and run up the deficit another 500 trillion...who really cares anyway...we won't have to deal with it...we can pass it on to our grandchildren
Re: Bush vs Kerry
First, Kerry said he won't raise taxes on anybody making less then 200,000, so unless you are, I don't see why you are worried.
Maybe you should consider how the cost of living has gone up under Bush though. Oil and medical expenses being the most obvoius. The health insurance my wife and I have has gone from about $175 a month to $250 a month in 2 1/2 years, that definitly is not lowering my cost of living and leaving me with any more money in my pocket. That is worst case insurance as well, $5000 deductible. Luckly my wife got hired as a teacher so this month we got off that plan and onto one that the school helps pay for.
In the meantime the owners of the company I work for are getting richer everyday with the lowest tax burnden for the rich in something like 75 years. The worst part, the company is on a hiring freeze and so I can't get converted to being a full time employe from being a contractor even though my boss wants to hire me on. Of course that hiring freeze is only in the US, they opened up a new office in asia that appears to be hiring like crazy.
Re: Bush vs Kerry
Wish I made over 200K a year, but Kerry will raise taxes for everyone and give tax credits to those that make less than 200k year with children. The difference should offset everyone's general increase if you have kids. Kerry's tax credits won't apply to me.
^^^ See thats the kind of shit I hate about our government. I pay more in taxes from the get go (being single with no kids), use less in resources (roads, water, govt. assistance whatever) and they hand over my f*king hard earned dollars to someone who CHOOSES to have a kid. Just to set to the record straight, I have nothing against parents out there but as someone who decided long ago that I didn't want to burden society with a mini-me, I see something inheriently wrong with our policies.
If you guys think for a second the only bracket Kerry is going to tax is 200k+ then you've been misled. Gentlemen, lets have a little economics 101. 1% of the population(the big corporations) pay 50% of the taxes. The 200k+ bracket pays 80% of the taxes, plus are the ones stimulating the economy with job growth. Why would'nt we give these guys a tax break? Bush has given everyone a tax break(middle class=marriage benefit and 1000 per child) as well as small business owners. Lets put things in perspective, average middle class income is 35k. So you get an additional tax break on that income, we're talking a few hundred bucks. So what??!!! Lets be honest, we go out and spend our big tax break everyones talking about in one night at a club buying dinner & drinks. This is the liberals whole philosophy...lets go have a lobster dinner...YOU PAY! Kerry has some big government plans for healthcare, 2 new divisions of the military, and big government medicare and welfare funding. Where you guys think this money is going to come from??? He can never answer this question straight up, dodged it in the last debate, and is evasive whenever asked where the money is coming from. We all know where its coming from, US. Kerry WILL raise taxes on everyone, this should not even be a topic of debate, its a pure fact.
Also, you liberals are not trying to elect a president, you want to elect a GOD. The truth is the US economy is much bigger than the government. The defiicit will continue to grow under any president. All we can do is set forth policies that will continue to stimulate, not punish the stimulators with heavy taxes to pay for social welfare programs. Personally im in favor of privatization, not big government. And that among other reasons(like for instance Kerry looks exactly like frankenstein) is why im voting for BUSH, because I'm going to take care of mine...you take care of yours.
Re: Bush vs Kerry
[quote=bren";p="66317]First, Kerry said he won't raise taxes on anybody making less then 200,000, so unless you are, I don't see why you are worried.
Maybe you should consider how the cost of living has gone up under Bush though. Oil and medical expenses being the most obvoius. The health insurance my wife and I have has gone from about $175 a month to $250 a month in 2 1/2 years, that definitly is not lowering my cost of living and leaving me with any more money in my pocket. That is worst case insurance as well, $5000 deductible. Luckly my wife got hired as a teacher so this month we got off that plan and onto one that the school helps pay for.
In the meantime the owners of the company I work for are getting richer everyday with the lowest tax burnden for the rich in something like 75 years. The worst part, the company is on a hiring freeze and so I can't get converted to being a full time employe from being a contractor even though my boss wants to hire me on. Of course that hiring freeze is only in the US, they opened up a new office in asia that appears to be hiring like crazy.[/quote]
I'm going to say it all here, and use Brens comments as a leading point, but not the whole of what I want to say.
First, I'm on Bush's side. He is a strong leader, and we need a leader. Kerry isn't one. He never has been one, his record proves that to be true. He is a fish out of water, flip flop. He will certainly destroy our military, just like Clinton did. Why did 9/11 happen, look to Clintons axe job on our CIA and military. Talk to a few people in the military. Also, the economy plummeted 6 months before Clinton left the presidency. Bush enherited that peace of crap economy thanks to the decisions of Clinton and his administration. I remember that. It is true.
Ok, Bren. Dont you see the class warfare these democrats want to play with you and me. Make you hate the rich. Well the rich may have it easier in some ways, but they make the jobs for little people like you and me. Be thankful to them. Most are not bad people. They simply have ambition and know how.
Health care. My cost are up too. I hate it, but its not Bush fault. It is the fault of trial lawyers (like Edwards specifically) who wrongfully make millions themselves on lawsuits against doctors, right or wrongful practices. Edwards is a scum bag. He is the rich one, and he tries to make you hate the hardworking business man who creates jobs and make good money for doing so. And look at smug Kerry. Rich as hell, and his rich bitch wife, who made it from her daddys money.
Also, taxes on business always come down the pike to you and me eventually. Raising the minimum wage raises the rate union workers base their wage structure on, raising the cost of manufacturing and in turn raising the cost of products, cars, etc.
And by the way, I could care less how the world looks at Bush or America. Bush has set free 50 million men, Women, and CHILDREN. More mass graves found yesterday in Iraq, women and children with bullet holes in the back of thier heads. NICE! Oh yeah, people are voting in Afghanistan. Something not enough of us do or appreciate the freedom to do here.
Spain, the terrorist very cleverly overthrew a democracy there, by bombing the trains and hurting enough people a couple days before their election that the people turned against the Conservative Government they had and put in place a Socialist Government which then pulled troops from Iraq.
The terrorist are very smart. Don't be fooled by them. This a world war, of old world ways of limited freedom and hatred, against the West. They will use any way or means to accomplish their goal. Sure am glad the fight is in Iraq now and not the streets of major American cities. I think the world hates to see a strong leader in America. They like a complacent leader, just like the UN. Give another chance to Saddam, for 12 years, and turn their back on this HITLER of the 21st century.
WAKE UP! the world is not a nice place anymore, the 1950's and Andy Griffith are long gone. People are different, Cultures are merging, and life as you and I knew it changed on 9/11. It is now a 9/12 world, and we have to face it. Clinton should have done something about Saddam and especially Asama back when he didn't have the HIDDEN following he acquired while we were asleep. Terrorism was growing all thru the 90's and nobody did anything. Bombing of American embassy in Afrca, the USS COLE, and of course the first attempt on the World Trade Center. We did nothing and 4000 people died on 9/11. You people think we are making it worse by fighting back. My daddy never taught me to fight back. So I got beat up and picked on in school. Then I learned to fight, and I fought everyone who pushed me. After a while nobody pushed me anymore. I wasnt a pushover, and I'm glad America isnt one either.
Bush didnt make this fight. HE FACED IT ... HEAD ON. I'm proud of this president for that!
Re: Bush vs Kerry
FYI it doesnt matter who wins...we have a long haul ahead as a world.
Hmmn.
Oil Production has reached capacity meaning if the Saudis say they want to lower oil prices (per their govt announcement) and oil futures go up...means serious problem has occured...what you might ask.
Oh wait that must mean that the value of oil is no longer being priced as an produced good but as a inventoried good. Inventoried goods can be hoarded. And as such oil will never drop in price from here on out.
Well where is the oil inventory located... Oh wait its under the highest corruption countries according to Amnesty Intl. Lets see Saudi Arabia, Iran...Russia. Oh those are the same states that have no open capitalist markets.
But who needs oil... OH WAIT THE ENTIRE WORLD DOES.
It doesnt take a genius that the US is securing their economic interests strategically (think long term over multiple presidencies). Regardless of Kerry or Bush winning this is going to be a common theme. Just think what would happen if the US did not have access to that oil. 96% of ALL consumed goods are produced with some sort of oil and that includes your headphones, vinyl, the keyboard you type on, the floorboards you walk on, the concrete and asphalt we drive on, the plastic used to make mass transit seats, the water that is pumped through cities. So the US has 7 days worth of oil in their oil reserve which is more days in reserve than any country in the world. Don't you realize what the hell would happen if all of a sudden 96% of a countries goods and production became halted in 7 days. Think MAD MAX by 100000000...
Well the US knows this and its sad to think that the rest of the countries don't have anyone with enough balls to make sure they stay on top. I really think its funny people are comparing bush vs. kerry and vice versa. When in history no other time has a Republican (Free markets people) have put up tarriffs on steel and lumber (a non competitive thing) and helped sign medicare acts, and has no other time has the Democratic party candidate stated that the economy is historically shit when statistically the US economy has never been stronger, and no other time has democrats pandered to big businesses stating Kerry will lead and economic recovery when technically the US has had a 2 year bull mkt since Nov 2002.
So to all the liberals who will be angry realize in the future the world will be competing over one resource...Wars are always fought over limited resources...land, gold...and now oil and realize that it doesnt matter who wins the election that our course as a country has already been plotted.
Looking forward for US vs. China 2036. I think we will nuke the hell out them
Don't vote...its pointless..mass human sociological behavior directs politics and it always does. Frankly the two candidates couldn't be more similar.
Re: Bush vs Kerry
Just a few impartial facts...
[quote=robprunzit";p="66464]
First, I'm on Bush's side. He is a strong leader, and we need a leader. Kerry isn't one. He never has been one, his record proves that to be true. He is a fish out of water, flip flop.
[/quote]
Have you seen Bush's record before becoming President, he failed at everything he did...
[quote] He will certainly destroy our military, just like Clinton did. Why did 9/11 happen, look to Clintons axe job on our CIA and military. Talk to a few people in the military. Also, the economy plummeted 6 months before Clinton left the presidency. Bush enherited that peace of crap economy thanks to the decisions of Clinton and his administration. I remember that. It is true. [/quote]
US intelligence were aware of the threat from bin Laden - Bush ignored the advice. And Clinton left him with a $127 billion surplus although the world was coming into recession.
[quote] And by the way, I could care less how the world looks at Bush or America. Bush has set free 50 million men, Women, and CHILDREN. [/quote]
50 million? Go and ask them how free they feel...
[quote] Spain, the terrorist very cleverly overthrew a democracy there, by bombing the trains and hurting enough people a couple days before their election that the people turned against the Conservative Government they had and put in place a Socialist Government which then pulled troops from Iraq. [/quote]
The Spanish people were against the war anyway, their government lied to them about the Madrid bombings... If they had said it was Al Qaeda rather than Eta they may have won the election.
[quote] WAKE UP! the world is not a nice place anymore, the 1950's and Andy Griffith are long gone. People are different, Cultures are merging, and life as you and I knew it changed on 9/11. It is now a 9/12 world, and we have to face it. Clinton should have done something about Saddam and especially Asama back when he didn't have the HIDDEN following he acquired while we were asleep. Terrorism was growing all thru the 90's and nobody did anything. Bombing of American embassy in Afrca, the USS COLE, and of course the first attempt on the World Trade Center. We did nothing and 4000 people died on 9/11. You people think we are making it worse by fighting back. My daddy never taught me to fight back. So I got beat up and picked on in school. Then I learned to fight, and I fought everyone who pushed me. After a while nobody pushed me anymore. I wasnt a pushover, and I'm glad America isnt one either.
Bush didnt make this fight. HE FACED IT ... HEAD ON. I'm proud of this president for that![/quote]
The world is not a nice place, and nobody is expected to make the right decision every time... It's right to fight back but when a kid picks on you at school you fight back against him - not someone who's got nothing to do with it. Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda and no WMDs. And now Iran and North Korea have furthered their nuclear proliferation programmes... And Iraq is a hotbed for terrorists. You shouldn't be so proud of that.
Re: Bush vs Kerry
[quote=robprunzit";p="66464] Health care. My cost are up too. I hate it, but its not Bush fault. It is the fault of trial lawyers (like Edwards specifically) who wrongfully make millions themselves on lawsuits against doctors, right or wrongful practices.[/quote]
First, we're responsible for doctor's medical malpractice premiums going up, now we're responsible for healthcare costs going up in general? That is rich. Yes, there is a certain logical appeal of thinking that lawsuits are responsible for raising doctor's premiums, but I defy you to cite any authority that actually shows a link between the two. Remember, just because Bush and his cronies say it is so doesn't mean it is so.
I invite you to check this out: [url]http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2003/06/02/29436.htm[/url]
It is an article in the Insurance Journal summarizing a Weiss study analyzing the reasons that medical malpractice premiums have risen, and noting that damage caps in states that have imposed them have not helped address the problem. I'll give you a preview: Weiss, one of the most respected insurance rating organizations in the industry has published a study in the Insurance Journal, the insurance industry's own bible, that finds that we lawyers ain't the problem.
With all of the drum-beating going on about a litigation crisis, you might be surprised to know that tort filings have decreased in the last decade, according to the National Center of State Courts, Court Statistics Project (2003). You might also be surprised to know that the average payouts have not outpaced inflation in the last decade -- resulting in a net decrease in the size of verdicts and settlements -- although I regrettably can't find the source for that right now.
Everyone always talks about the anamalous cases that make the news like the McDonald's coffee case. The cases that make up that vast majority of the cases in the court system are resolved in a way that you would expect -- people that file bad cases lose and people that file good cases are fairly compensated. Bush talks like we just file meritless cases and make millions. Oh, how I wish it was that easy...
You're free to hate us lawyers. I am proud of the work I do for consumers and citizens, and I don't really care if you like me or not. You should, however, get your facts straight. You may hate us now, but I guarantee you'll hate your situation 10X more if your rights are stripped in the way this administration suggests, should you ever find yourself needing to exercise them.
[quote=robprunzit";p="66464] It is now a 9/12 world[/quote]
This is a popular Bushie rallying cry, but you know what? Last time I looked at the calendar, it is now a 10/15/2004 world, and we would be foolish to ignore the way that events since 9/11 impact our current situation. Tunnel vision is as dangerous as inaction.
First of all, elove and robprunzit, very very impressive. "mass human sociological behavior directs politics" WOW. Intellectually sound, and very true. Its a very 3 dimensional way of thinking, and very thoughtful of the long term. Bravo. I couldn't agree more. People like Mixu are among the discouragingly large population of liberals who find fault with everything we do. America is always the bad guy. Always the enemy, intruding on other cultures, 'occupying' other nations. Somehow I cant see how or where these people fit into an American agenda, and wonder why they bite the hand that feeds them. Pathetic.
[quote=PhAntoM MeNaCe";p="66828]First of all, elove and robprunzit, very very impressive. "mass human sociological behavior directs politics" WOW. Intellectually sound, and very true. Its a very 3 dimensional way of thinking, and very thoughtful of the long term. Bravo. I couldn't agree more. People like Mixu are among the discouragingly large population of liberals who find fault with everything we do. America is always the bad guy. Always the enemy, intruding on other cultures, 'occupying' other nations. Somehow I cant see how or where these people fit into an American agenda, and wonder why they bite the hand that feeds them. Pathetic.[/quote]
PhAntoM MeNaCe... I don't find fault with everything the US does and America isn't always the bad guy. Now that's not what I said is it? But if people are making arguments that aren't based on fact then I'm going to point it out. And that's all I did.
Frankly, it's pathetic being a member of [MS] for just over a month and using almost every post to flame other people with your opinions... and then failing to defend your arguments when the lack of logic or fact is pointed out. :roll:
Mixu, welcome back toasty, yet another one of your alter egos. I dont see where there is a lack of logic or fact, the only thing I see is a lack of sense from you. Your statements are erratic wild pitches.
Well, starting from the bottom up. We'll see how far I get before I get totally disgusted and simply stop because my stomach aches and I want to barf!
I hope I have the quotes working properly, if not try to work thru my dialogue. I will spend a considerable amount of time to type my thoughts. But thats Ok. If I don't get sick with it all first.
To Toasty:
[quote=robprunzit";p="66464] It is now a 9/12 world[/quote]
This is a popular Bushie rallying cry, but you know what? Last time I looked at the calendar, it is now a 10/15/2004 world, and we would be foolish to ignore the way that events since 9/11 impact our current situation. Tunnel vision is as dangerous as inaction. [/quote]
I think it is you who has the Tunnel vision. That is what I was implying. Or do you simply have your eyes covered.
Funny how a lawyer has to rant the praises of his profession, but when you talk to doc's (and I have) they tell a different story. Insurance which they have to take out on their practice to cover them in the event that they will be sued is the problem. This problem is leaving many docs in a situation of not accepting risky surgeries for the fear of being sued if it doesn't come out as the patient (and doc) would hope.
You may be a honest lawyer, I hope so. I know there are some good and bad in all peopel and professions. It's ashame that men like Edwards ruin the reputation for the rest of you, and the lives of docs who are in a business to help people.
The facts are that most lawyers fight to win for their client, whether right or wrong, and some are simply motivated by the win, or the money, and not what is ethical.
To Mixu:
[quote=";p="66503] Just a few impartial facts...
[quote=robprunzit";p="66464]
First, I'm on Bush's side. He is a strong leader, and we need a leader. Kerry isn't one. He never has been one, his record proves that to be true. He is a fish out of water, flip flop.
[/quote]
Have you seen Bush's record before becoming President, he failed at everything he did...
He has done one thing right. That was taking the job of the UN in his own hands, after 12 years of threats from them, and removing by force a man no better than Hitler.
He hasn't done everything right. But I believe he is doing his best, and I trust this administration. I cannot possibly trust Kerry.
[quote] He will certainly destroy our military, just like Clinton did. Why did 9/11 happen, look to Clintons axe job on our CIA and military. Talk to a few people in the military. Also, the economy plummeted 6 months before Clinton left the presidency. Bush enherited that peace of crap economy thanks to the decisions of Clinton and his administration. I remember that. It is true. [/quote]
US intelligence were aware of the threat from bin Laden - Bush ignored the advice. And Clinton left him with a $127 billion surplus although the world was coming into recession.
Excuse, me it cost money to
Maybe I could go on, but I'm tired now.
[quote] And by the way, I could care less how the world looks at Bush or America. Bush has set free 50 million men, Women, and CHILDREN. [/quote]
50 million? Go and ask them how free they feel...
Mixu, you wrote to PhAntoM, "But if people are making arguments that aren't based on fact then I'm going to point it out. And that's all I did. "
Excuse me, what did you just do there. Opinion or fact. I have heard several times from people of Iraq, how they are for this war and the future they will have after they acquire enough strength. Where is your fact? Think about it, Iraqi men are standing in line (where they are non-moving targets fot the suicide drive-by bomber), waiting for their orders as new policemen. If they were not for it, why are they willing to die. I don't hear they are running. No they are building more and more mental strength and stamina daily, because American and Coalition troops have not turned and left, but came to help them have freedom and they are achieving that goal. There will not be any more 'mass graves' or 'torture chambers' where tongues or other things are removed as punishment. Bush said in his first 'state of the union address'. It will take a long time and it want be easy, but we will win.
[quote] Spain, the terrorist very cleverly overthrew a democracy there, by bombing the trains and hurting enough people a couple days before their election that the people turned against the Conservative Government they had and put in place a Socialist Government which then pulled troops from Iraq. [/quote]
The Spanish people were against the war anyway, their government lied to them about the Madrid bombings... If they had said it was Al Qaeda rather than Eta they may have won the election.
Sorry, I cannot speak of facts about this anymore than what I said before. I think the terrorist overturned the govt, if not, why did they plan it at the time they did. They plot very carefully. Did you know, a plot was overturned in NY city just a day before the Republican National Convention last month. They stopped a subway bombing. I don't remember the details, I'm sure you could find it if your interested. The terrorist are not dummies with big bombs.
[quote] WAKE UP! the world is not a nice place anymore, the 1950's and Andy Griffith are long gone. People are different, Cultures are merging, and life as you and I knew it changed on 9/11. It is now a 9/12 world, and we have to face it. Clinton should have done something about Saddam and especially Asama back when he didn't have the HIDDEN following he acquired while we were asleep. Terrorism was growing all thru the 90's and nobody did anything. Bombing of American embassy in Afrca, the USS COLE, and of course the first attempt on the World Trade Center. We did nothing and 4000 people died on 9/11. You people think we are making it worse by fighting back. My daddy never taught me to fight back. So I got beat up and picked on in school. Then I learned to fight, and I fought everyone who pushed me. After a while nobody pushed me anymore. I wasnt a pushover, and I'm glad America isnt one either.
Bush didnt make this fight. HE FACED IT ... HEAD ON. I'm proud of this president for that![/quote]
The world is not a nice place, and nobody is expected to make the right decision every time... It's right to fight back but when a kid picks on you at school you fight back against him - not someone who's got nothing to do with it. Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda and no WMDs. And now Iran and North Korea have furthered their nuclear proliferation programmes... And Iraq is a hotbed for terrorists. You shouldn't be so proud of that. [/quote]
Excuse me, but Saddam was an enemy of the US, the West, Israel, Kuwait, and Iran. I'm not sure about Turkey, though I believe they were not friends since Turkey has embraced TODAYS STANDARDS.
And Bush probably put the fear of God into Iran and N.Korea. He called them 'an axis of evil'. Bush was aware of what he was doing when he said that. He was putting them on notice. They are next my friend.
Libya was wise to give it up and cooperate. The world is not going to put up with leaders like the 'Taliban', 'Kim', and 'Hussien'. We need a peaceful planet, and sometimes you have to face the bad guy, stand up to him with warnings, and act upon it if HE decides not to abide by those standards. The United Nations as a whole made those demands and Saddam (also Libya) knew they would NEVER do anything but threaten and not act on it. I am so proud of my President. He will go down in history as a man who achieved much. Unlike Clinton, who will only be remembered as a cheating husband, and a womanizer with a smelly cigar.
To elove: IT DOES MATTER WHO WINS. This is probably the most important election America has ever seen. The world has changed so much in the past 100 years, in all ways and every area. I don't want to live in a world of FEAR. But that is what the terrorist want for us.
Oil. I agree with much of what you said, though not you conclusions. Yes we need and have to use this resource, or develope new ways of extracting the resource, or developing newer better resources. Bush was right to walk away from the Kyoto talks and not get tied down by them and what they wanted to do. We have to break away from the Saudis, and drive for oil on our own land. We have to develope other means as well. If I understand it correctly, Bush is for exploring newer cleaner ways of providing these resources. Hydrogen engines in cars as one alternative.
I'm just not in 100% agreement with you. Sure wars are fought over resources, but I truly believe this man is sincere. He wants to help people, and give in what ways he can to the world. Sad but sometimes it take force to get people to do what is right. Sometimes children have to be disciplined. If not, they will become terribly selfish out of control rude adults.
Sometimes leaders have to be dealt with. Saddam had 12 years of warnings, and he still tried to shoot down patrol planes over the no-fly zone and overly disobey the orders given to him by the world.
He had the major OIL resources there and he used it for his own good, and not the good of his own people. While they starved, he built palaces and tortured innocent peopel. All the while his own sons were becoming even worse people than he even had the capability to be himself. If he had acquired Nuclear, he could have held the world hostage. The soldiers found his underground labs for building learning how to build them. He declared after the gulf war the WMDs he had in writting, and that he would get rid of them. He never showed the world how he disposed of them. WHERE DID THEY GO? WHY NOT ASK IT?
Did he truly dispose of them. If he didn't want to be invaded, why didn't he just show proof. No, the soldiers found several missils with WMDs. Enough to kill half a million people if dispersed the right way with winds in the right direction. The chemical they found was not even one that we knew he had or had been declared, but was not allowed.
What does it take to make a stockpile? Are 500,000 potential deaths not enough. Were the slaughtering of 300,000 of his own not enough? Are the mass graves of missing family members not enough? And some of those graves full of women and children with bullet holes in the back of the head.
I'm more saddened by the world and the lack of reaction, than I am by anything else. Whats it going to take? Watching your own family members flesh rot before your own eyes, which is what could happen if Asama's men get the WMDs. Where did they GO, I ask?
CHINA. Your right elove. That is the true question for our future. We will have to face the nation of a billion with the whole world behind us. I hope that day never comes. Nukes over there will be nukes over everywhere, unless we get the space defenses up and working. By then, they will have those defenses and there will be different weapons to get aroung the space defenses.
OH, I'M GOING TO BE SICK!
Mixu,
I screwed up the quotes to you.
My comments are all HIDDEN in the quote part of the section I devoted to what you had to say. SCROLL THRU THE QUOTE UNDER YOUR NAME and see alot I wrote to you. Damn, I couldn't get the quotes to copy over properly. Life ...
[quote]If I understand it correctly, Bush is for exploring newer cleaner ways of providing these resources. Hydrogen engines in cars as one alternative.[/quote]
If you honestly believe Bush would ever do anything that could potentially take money money away from any oilmen, you are out of your mind. Please read this article: [url]http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/05/ma_375_01.html[/url]
[quote=robprunzit";p="68086]Mixu,
I screwed up the quotes to you.
My comments are all HIDDEN in the quote part of the section I devoted to what you had to say. SCROLL THRU THE QUOTE UNDER YOUR NAME and see alot I wrote to you. Damn, I couldn't get the quotes to copy over properly. Life ...[/quote]
Rob,
Some good points and some we'll have to agree to disagree on... Some things I should have been clearer on and could elaborate further on but there's no point in getting lost in rhetoric.
I'm not an apologist for Saddam, Kerry or Clinton I've just got a problem with Bush starting illegal wars ? if there was a legitimate international consensus then I would have less of a problem. And as I've said in other threads a pre-emptive strike contravenes international law. The cause and effects of 9/11 had to be tackled and that I agree with most people on, I think...
PhAntoM MeNaCe ? yeah, nice comeback. You really showed me :FuckOff:
[quote=PhAntoM MeNaCe";p="68082]Mixu, welcome back toasty, yet another one of your alter egos. [/quote]
:NotMe:
Look neuro, just b/c you feel the perverse need to create multiple accounts to make it seem like there is support for your point of view doesn't mean that the rest of us do. I generally like what mixu has to say, but he/she ain't me.
[quote=robprunzit";p="68085]I think it is you who has the Tunnel vision. That is what I was implying. Or do you simply have your eyes covered. [/quote]
Anyone supporting Bush, a man who cannot see the [b]trees[/b] for the trees (let alone the forest), accusing someone else of tunnel vision or failing to see what is going on around them represents such an alarming display of chutzpah, I don't even know where to start. We're not going to see eye to eye on this one, so I'll drop it...
[quote=robprunzit";p="68085]when you talk to doc's (and I have) they tell a different story. Insurance which they have to take out on their practice to cover them in the event that they will be sued is the problem. This problem is leaving many docs in a situation of not accepting risky surgeries for the fear of being sued if it doesn't come out as the patient (and doc) would hope.
[/quote]
No shit doctors tell a different story -- they've seen insurance companies raise their rates and baldly blame lawyers for years now. As I mentioned before, there is a certain logical appeal to thinking that lawsuits are the problem, but the facts do not bear this out.
Insurance companies are in the business of making a profit, period -- of course all companies are like this to some extent, but taking a loss for a quarter or so in furtherance of some future goal is not an acceptable option in the insurance industry and does not fit into their business model. Contrary to popular belief, the lion's share of this profit comes not from premiums, but from investments -- premiums are cash flow. When the market goes south, as it has in the last few years, insurance companies have to make that money somehow. They can't really say to doctors, "look, we've made some bad investments over the last few years, so we have to raise your premiums" -- so lawyers become the scapegoat, even though the facts (which you did not mention) do not support this conclusion.
The last year was pretty good in the market, and here in Missouri, the Department of Insurance reported that "2003 malpractice claims reach record lows ? cash flow yields windfall for insurers"
[url]http://www.insurance.state.mo.us/cgi-bin/news/news1.cgi?sr=2&newsid=EplkEuAlEltTresgrz[/url]
Riddle me this -- why is it that reform legislation that is by its express terms designed to reduce doctors' premiums does not place any regulations or restrictions upon those premiums at all? You would think that the insurance industry would be regulated in some way -- they are not because the insurance industry, not doctors, are the real driving force behind this legislation. Doctors put the friendly face on the legislation -- after all, who doesn't like doctors?
Not too long ago, Sen. Talent was stumping in a small town in NE MO, talking about how there were no longer any OB/GYNs in the community. After his speech, we contacted some doctors in the area, and found six OB/GYN's, four of whom were accepting new patients. A friend of mine works for Talent, and when I asked her about it, she just shrugged and smiled.
Many of my friends are doctors (believe it or not, in the real world, doctors and lawyers can peacefully co-exist), and I think their premiums going up as they have is a real problem. A knee jerk reaction such as what has been proposed by Bush at the behest of his buddies in the insurance industry, however, is not the answer.
Kerry knows better than to raise taxes on the middle class. That's an outright lie! Ans as far as a stonger leader, how can you call the guy who stayed home and didn't show up for his National Guard meetings a stronger leader while, Kerry (and my Father) were over slogging it out in Viet Nam. Yeah, Bush is a stronger leader. That's a complete fallacy!!!
[quote=DJkeithrace]Kerry knows better than to raise taxes on the middle class. That's an outright lie! Ans as far as a stonger leader, how can you call the guy who stayed home and didn't show up for his National Guard meetings a stronger leader while, Kerry (and my Father) were over slogging it out in Viet Nam. Yeah, Bush is a stronger leader. That's a complete fallacy!!![/quote]
I know you dont want to look at a proven leader and give him credit where credit is due. Its hard to do that. I had to do that with Clinton on only one area. He took the side of the Albanian Muslim in the war he had a part in. I was not on the side of my fellow conservatives, but actually agreed with Clinton. But that was the only time.
Bush (whether re-elected or not), has proven to be strong in what he believes in ( and I'm right there with him ). 50 million people are free today because of that, and the ones who don't like the freedom over there only want to keep the chain around their womans neck. I've been to a couple Muslim countries. I have seen the poverty, the ruthless attitude toward women and knowledge for them. They want to keep it a third world over there because it gives them power.
Tell me ... how could anyone consider it an illegal war. 12 years the UN threatened. They could have gone in the first time Saddam pulled one of his tricks. But NO! There was too much of Saddams money to be handed out to those willing to look the other way while he shot women and children in the back of the head. While his sons raped women and pushed them out windows after they shot their load. Excuse me, but you are willing to pardon the 'Hitler' of the 90's.
Toasty, Explain to me how Edwards made his millions. I don't think it was the insurance companies benefit on his behalf. He took money from the insurance companies making it a sure bet they would raise their rates. They have to make money. It is a business. Or do all you liberals have a problem with business making money, but your so willing to give more to the Big Govt.
If you like the Socialist system. Go live in Canada, or one the many European countries, where if your 'surgery' isn't life threatening you may wait a year to have that surgery.
Personally, I'm on the side of our countries founding fathers. Small govt and more chance for the little people to take a step up in life and make a business, and maybe get rich from their idea and risk.
I'm not rich. And I'm not envious of the rich either. I hope one day to make myself rich by my actions and the chances I'm willing to take in life. But that is not what the Democratic party in America wants for the citizens of America. They want you and me to rely on them, while they all get rich.
You guys have it so screwed up.
Kerry will raise taxes on the middle class, right thru the back door and into your back pocket. They have done it before, and they will do it again. And if you listen to Kerry (who by the way has absolutely no plan - other than to raise taxes on the rich ), you will hear his ideas of how to take more from the rich and give it to the poor. Again, making the poor more reliant on the Govt, while the middle class (and rich) pay the bills. Never giving the poor hope to get out of the gutter.
Bush turned this economy around, and brought it out of the hole that it had been in for 6 months prior to his taking office, and even in the midst of our 9/11 attacks and the job losses, etc.
Bush has done an excellent job with the economy. Though not everyone, all the time, is going to do well all the time. In :!: my work I can see the growth our economy has had in the last year and a half.
Thank you tax cuts, and a wise plan of putting money back in the pockets of people, so they turn around and spend, driving the economy to the place where it is today.
Kerry will tax the rich, and the little people will pay the price. Study economics, not your emotions. Use your head, not your heart. 'Feelings' cannot lead. Sound 'thought' has to lead you, and lead this country.
This is the most important election of the 20th and 21st century. For the sake of our security, which is the most important factor today.
Re: Bush vs Kerry
In case you're curious, here is a representative sample of Edwards cases. Note that these are not bullshit soft-tissue whiplash cases:
Lakey v. Sta-Rite Industries (Wake Co. Superior Ct., NC, 1996) 5-year-old girl was disemboweled, but survived, after being caught and suctioned by wading pool's defective drain. Despite 12 prior suits with similar claims, manufacturer continued to make and sell drain covers lacking warnings.
Buck v. Atlantic Veneer Corp. (Carteret Co. Superior Ct., NC, 1987) Worker fractured both ankles, jaw, and skull after fall from 24-foot scaffold in defendant's plywood plant.
Griffin v. Teague, et al. (Mecklenburg Co. Superior Ct., NC, 1997) Application of abdominal pressure and delay in performing c-section caused brain damage to infant and resulted in child having cerebral palsy and spastic quadriplegia.
Campbell v. Pitt County Memorial Hosp. (Pitt County, NC, 1985) Infant born with cerebral palsy after breech birth via vaginal delivery, rather than cesarean. Established North Carolina precedent of physician and hospital liability for failing to determine if patient understood risks of particular procedure.
Wiggs v. Glover, et al. Plaintiff alleged infant's severe cerebral palsy was caused by negligent administration of pitocin, failure to use fetal monitor, or timely intervening in baby's fetal distress.
Cooper v. Craven Regional Med. Ctr., et al. Infant suffered severe brain damage after obstetrician failed to moderate use of Picotin after baby displayed clear fetal distress.
Dixon v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital (Pitt County, NC) Birth-related injuries including cerebral palsy and mental retardation allegedly caused by obstetrician's failure to diagnose fetal distress, including umbilical cord wrapped around baby's neck prior to delivery.
Sawyer v. St. Joseph's Hospital Doctor prescribed drug overdose of anti-alcoholism drug Antabuse, resulting in permanent brain and nerve damage.
Allen v. Bostic (Forsyth Co. Superior Ct., NC, 1991) Doctor's delay and failure to properly treat 45-year-old's severely lacerated foot ultimately required amputation of foot three years later.
Kim v. Poling & Bacon Construction Co., Inc. (Wake Co. Superior Ct., NC, 1992) Head-on car-truck collision injured 5 in car, including 7-year-old who suffered fractured skull and massive brain injury
Casey, et al. v. Fredrickson Motor Exp. Corp. (Buncombe Co. Superior Ct., NC, 1991) Part-time employee suffered severe brain damage after vehicle collided with defendant's semi-truck.
Edwards did not "take money from insurance companies." He made his millions by seeing to it that those who were responsible for harm caused to others paid for that harm. No doubt, many of those wrongdoers were prudent enough to purchase insurance before fucking up.
I am not opposed to insurance companies making money. What I am opposed to is insurance companies bending doctors over as a group because of a few bad apples. My understanding is that a very small percentage of doctors (something like 5%) are responsible for 80-90% of the medical malpractice verdicts and settlements out there. I think these doctors ought to have a really tough time getting insurance, if they are able to at all. If you are a doctor and you consistently fuck up in a way that kills or seriously injures your patients, you effectively lose the privilege of practicing medicine. For the record, I think lawyers ought to be held to the same standard -- if we consistently display an inability to competently practice, we lose the right to do so.
I am opposed to legislation that purports to do one thing (protect doctors) but fails to address the underlying problem and actually does something else -- unduly limit people's rights.
As for your other points, I'm not for big government. If you're not for big government, either, I'm not sure what you see in Bush. The guy hasn't vetoed a single spending bill during his presidency, and will leave his tenure with a far larger and more intrusive government than he began with. Indeed, Bush has discarded the ideals that have seen me vote Republican my entire voting life -- small government, fiscal responsibility, civil liberties -- Bush has not given me what I expected when I voted for him 4 years ago. Compassionate conservative my ass.
All Bush's tax cuts have done is remind me that a few dollars here and there really don't make a huge difference in my life.
To your remaining points, you've obviously got such a hard-on for Bush that you believe whatever comes out of his pursed little mouth. Arguing them with you would be a collosal waste of both of our time. You're making arguments to rebut points I haven't even advanced, for fuck's sake. Pretty easy to win an argument against a straw man.
BTW, you have yet to even address any of the facts or arguments I have submitted regarding the fallacies of tort reform.
[quote=robprunzit]
Bush has done an excellent job with the economy. Though not everyone, all the time, is going to do well all the time. In :!: my work I can see the growth our economy has had in the last year and a half.[/quote]
An excellent job with the economy?? Are you nuts?
"At this point it seems unlikely that even total employment will return to the level of January 2001 by the time Bush's full four-year term has ended. As Democrats like to note, that would indeed make him the first president since Herbert Hoover to experience a net job loss over a full term."
-- That quote is from factcheck.org, the site Dick Cheney quoted at the debates as a nonpartisan, independent political factchecker. [url]http://www.factcheck.org/article234.html[/url]
Largest deficit ever in history? Yep. Take a look at this rather stunning graph:
[img]http://www.mokeys.org/images/deficit.png[/img]
and don't think for one minute that if re-elected that the deficit is going to get balanced out...it won't.
Military spending continues to go higher and higher, unfortunately, a lot of that is hidden pork-barrel projects of various representatives...in the meantime, that money could go to oh, say, providing reasonable equipment for our soldiers overseas...considering the administration fucked up thinking this was going to be Gulf War I where we just waltz in, take things over ok, and come back home and all is well.