Why I believe Bush is a genius

I always thought the idealological battle of insults and nitwittery was lessened on ATS, but even with the distruction of the Mudpit, the sewage has leaked all over.

There is no debate, there is insult and anger. This is a lame discussion as people can't debate what one thinks.

The author believes something. You can't counter that with more opinion you ninnies.

So in the end, I say, who cares.

There is no outlandish theorem or mathematical equation in the world that could express how little I care.

Originally posted by mwm1331
1) many people are saying that the war in Iraq has increased terror on a globl scale and at first glance it is true. However terror attacks on america have decreased significantly. By invading Iraq Bush created a flashpoint for terrorist 'son the other side of the world from America. Terrorists who would have come to the states instead went to fight us in Iraq. While the death of our service men is regrettable I would rather see our people fighting terrorism in Iraq than at the mall.

I would rather see our people fighting terrorism in Iraq then on American soil too... I have a hard time trying to understand the logic behind Kerry's voice and his other dems... Peoplejust totally forgot about 9-11, they forgot the people who blew it up, their reasoning behind it, they forgot just how insecure our country was to terrorist threats and attacks....... And now that the terrorists are rearing their ugly heads we're over there weeding them out and democrats are sympathizing with the terrorists!!

2) the tax cut plan advanced by Bush cut the maximum tax rate by 11% however contrary to his critics claims of a tax "cut for the rich" the tax rate at the lowest end of the income scale was lowered by 50%. The lowest tax braket was changed from 15% to 10%. In fact according to the Treasury Department's estimate for 2004 50% of all tax brakets (the lowest 50% by income level, by the way) will pay 16% less tax than in 2003 or 2002

This is a perfect example of a statistical figure........ Can you democrats at least listen to that and explain your opinions "based of facts" ???

I didn't know the numerical statistics mwm, but it's interesting to note.
And since this is Political debate, is there any democrat that can shut this down with numerical figures? Just curious, i'm neither here nor there, but I know how dems operate...


Again, good job... We need more threads based off facts and figures, then just plain old regurgitated drivel.







3) The Moon to Mars initiative is the largest budget increase in recent NASA history. (thier budget was cut under Clinton)

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I always thought the idealological battle of insults and nitwittery was lessened on ATS, but even with the distruction of the Mudpit, the sewage has leaked all over.

There is no debate, there is insult and anger. This is a lame discussion as people can't debate what one thinks.

The author believes something. You can't counter that with more opinion you ninnies.

So in the end, I say, who cares.

encourage heated political discussion and debate on topics that are often argued with intense passion. The rules of conduct are NO LONGER COMPLETELY RELAXED in the Mud-Pit, personal attacks and insults are not tolerated. If you engage in attacks and insults, you MAY BE BANNED FROM ATS!.
This special purpose forum is not your pulpit to insult.

---Read the top KJ.... Your post had nothing to do with politics butmerely your own opinion on what the discussion was about and thus decided to spew your own venom... Ninnie is an insult as well as an attack...
Either contribute to the thread or don't bother commenting.

Originally posted by TrueLies
You must be a real #ING IDIOT.........

Throwing stones again, Lies?

Originally posted by Jonna

Originally posted by TrueLies
You must be a real #ING IDIOT.........

Throwing stones again, Lies?

That was democrats in general... Wasn't insulting any of him on here...
Just merely saying, if your a democrat and believe Kerry is the man for president, the one who has no backbone, changes his mind all the time, and promises everybody everything like Santy Claus, then yes, you must be a REAL #ING IDIOT...

but nice try Jonna, and I see you've added alot valid and interesting opinions to this thread.

TextMy conclusion: You must be a real IDIOT.........

Name calling is not going to make your point any stronger for the contrary all you going to get is a warning.

Originally posted by TrueLies

2) the tax cut plan advanced by Bush cut the maximum tax rate by 11% however contrary to his critics claims of a tax "cut for the rich" the tax rate at the lowest end of the income scale was lowered by 50%. The lowest tax braket was changed from 15% to 10%. In fact according to the Treasury Department's estimate for 2004 50% of all tax brakets (the lowest 50% by income level, by the way) will pay 16% less tax than in 2003 or 2002

This is a perfect example of a statistical figure........ Can you democrats at least listen to that and explain your opinions "based of facts" ???

I wouldn't call myself a democrat, not being American or affiliated with any party, but here's what I think about the tax cuts.

True, it may be beneficial in one way to low income tax payers, in that less of their income goes to the government, however, the rich also recieved a substantial tax cut. 11% of a wealthy person's taxes is a far bigger reduction in the amount of money they have to pay, compared to 15% of a person on minimum wage. As the wealthy recieve such a substantial cut, much less of their disposable income, which they can do nothing with but put in the bank, is going towards the public services which are needed by the working class.

Working class people need public transport, schools and healthcare, but their tax money will not pay for it as they earn relatively little. See the problem with tax cuts?

-

On TrueLies's point on Democrats having a pessemistic attitude...it has to be said he is right in that I don't see any mention of Kerry's policies, or what he promises to do to rectify Bush's mistakies.

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad
I wouldn't call myself a democrat, not being American or affiliated with any party, but here's what I think about the tax cuts.

It's so much better to take that stance, then you wouldn't be blinded by one side of the political spectrum's opinions and ideologies, truth=middle.

True, it may be beneficial in one way to low income tax payers, in that less of their income goes to the government, however, the rich also recieved a substantial tax cut. 11% of a wealthy person's taxes is a far bigger reduction in the amount of money they have to pay, compared to 15% of a person on minimum wage. As the wealthy recieve such a substantial cut, much less of their disposable income, which they can do nothing with but put in the bank, is going towards the public services which are needed by the working class.

Working class people need public transport, schools and healthcare, but their tax money will not pay for it as they earn relatively little. See the problem with tax cuts?

The thing I don't understand is that if all people are given tax cuts working or not that leaves more money in their pockets right?
So if you recieve more more on account of the tax cuts wouldn't you be able to have more money in your pocket for public transit and health care?
I'm not so sure what the working class has to do with school so if you can clarify that for me that would be super. Health care in states works like this.
If you have insurance you get your scripts, you also get billed for your doctor's appointment, you pay a certain amount to your insurance company per month... So from those tax cuts wouldn't you be able to pay your insurance company easier from those tax cuts if you were short on cash before the tax cuts?
Point being, I believe giving tax cuts to all walks of human life is beneficial to all in that you get to keep more of your own hard working money, you can use it for yourself for all thsoe things instead of distributing it around to other people.. I maybe wrong I maybe right, but on this issue I think i'm right until proven otherwise... Your turn.

On TrueLies's point on Democrats having a pessemistic attitude...it has to be said he is right in that I don't see any mention of Kerry's policies, or what he promises to do to rectify Bush's mistakies.

Thank you, and i'm also waiting for the dems to step up to the plate to inform us all on what Kerry is going to do... Not just what he's going to do, but "how"... HOW is the key word...

The problem I have with Kerry is his promises to everybody but he doesn't state how he's going to do it and how it could affect the economy truthfully.
As far as i'm concerned he's so full of # he doesn't even know it.

[edit on 7-7-2004 by TrueLies]

Bush the genius,

1. Bush continues to push for new nuclear weapons but he can tell other countries that nuclear weapons are wrong.

2.Bush proposes weakening Head Start.President Bush proposes changing the specific federal outlays to block grants that will give states more "flexibility" to spend the money.

3.Bush obstructs September 11 investigation.The commission complains of interference and noncooperation from all over the administration, noting that "problems that have arisen so far with the Department of Defense are becoming particularly serious."

4.Bush exposes an undercover CIA agent in an act of petty vengeance.

5.Bush threatens veto if Congress overturns new FCC rules.But Bush isn't one to let something like "the will of the people" get in the way of his pro-corporate agenda.

6.Bush creates a system where people can invest in the possibility of terror attacks and international upheaval.

7.Bush shuts down nuclear weapons advisory panel.

8.Bush promotes a federal ban on gay marriage.Bush attacks gay marriage, suggesting that his administration is working on a way to make it illegal everywhere in the country.

9.Bush proposes cuts to Medicare funding for cancer drugs.

10.Bush seeks retribution for judges who use their discretion in sentencing.Laws that restrict the ability of judges to use their discretion when sentencing criminals can be the source of grave miscarriages of justice.

11.Bush gives oil companies in Iraq blanket immunity from lawsuits.But Bush ensures that oil companies can engage in all the abuse they want .

12.Bush proposes eliminating protections for historical sites from highway projects.

13.Bush pushes plan to make it easier for timber companies to plunder national forests.

14.Bush uses EPA funds to make campaign ads. He care not for the enviroment.

15.Bush starts new public relations campaign on Iraq.creating a new public relations push to make people feel better about the soldier-per-day death rate since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished."

16. Bush's economic adviser, N. Gregory Mankiw, says the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas is sometimes a good thing.

Yeah...................his a genius all right......................... and the people that sourround him too.

Originally posted by TrueLies

The thing I don't understand is that if all people are given tax cuts working or not that leaves more money in their pockets right?
So if you recieve more more on account of the tax cuts wouldn't you be able to have more money in your pocket for public transit and health care?
I'm not so sure what the working class has to do with school so if you can clarify that for me that would be super. Health care in states works like this.
If you have insurance you get your scripts, you also get billed for your doctor's appointment, you pay a certain amount to your insurance company per month... So from those tax cuts wouldn't you be able to pay your insurance company easier from those tax cuts if you were short on cash before the tax cuts?
Point being, I believe giving tax cuts to all walks of human life is beneficial to all in that you get to keep more of your own hard working money, you can use it for yourself for all thsoe things instead of distributing it around to other people.. I maybe wrong I maybe right, but on this issue I think i'm right until proven otherwise... Your turn.

Think of it this way, if someone who earns very little money gets a substantial tax cut, they still earn relatively little, and still can't afford certain services that the rich can buy in the private sector.

People who can't afford to run a car probably aren't going to get much help from an 11% tax cut, and they need good public transport to get around. Taxes, from both rich and poor, are needed to pay for this. Anyone who earns a lot money can run a car, maybe more than one. These well off people have disposable income to spare which I believe should go to help those who cannot afford the services others can.

The same goes for state education. Children of working class parents need education to better themselves and to get a job which allows them the disposable income the wealthy enjoy. The wealthy can afford private education, but they still are entitled to state school education should they choose it. I believe that their comparitively insignificant tax payments - when you consider how much they earn - should go towards state education for those unfortunate enough to be born into a family who cannot afford the alternative.

My point is that as such a gulf exists between the salaries of the upper classes and the working classes, tax makes very little difference to the wealthy but takes a substantial chunk out of the salaries of those who need more money to better their standards of living. Although the rich pay more, it is insignificant when compared to what they get to keep, atleast when their salaries pass the limit for maximum taxable amount.

For those at the other end of the spectrum, medical insurance is to expensive, and it is my belief that an 11% tax cut will not help the people struggling to pay insurance and medical bills very much, or the people who rely on healthcare provided by the state. Nationalised healthcare is the way to go.

I believe in redistribution. I may be wrong, but it seems fair and just to me.

Bush as an economy genius, I wonder how he will interpret this,

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 07 Jul 2004 at 07:20:22 PM GMT is:

7,256,616,374,479.88

The estimated population of the United States is 294,502,384
so each citizen's share of this debt is $24,640.26.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.68 billion per day since September 30, 2003!

I would just like to point out..
that in Britian, I dont know about America, if you choose to send your kid to a public school (e.g. non-state school, for some reason it's called a public school, examples include Eton)... you still pay, out of your 40% income tax, towards other children's state school educations...

pay, out of your 40% income tax, towards other children's state school educations...

In US is call property taxes, regardless is you have children in school or not, or if you pay out of pocket for private school you still have a portion of your property taxes going to schools.

My point exactly.. the rich are paying for two educations..

Cider good headache bad- according to the treasury department in 2002 the people in the top 50% by incomes paid 96% of all income taxes collected. Meaning that the rich are supporting the poor. Redistribution is fair to who? The fact is the only way to become rich in america is to create value, to create a company which employs the poor and the working class. Is it fair to tell someone who has worked hard all his life that he no longer has the right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor? Look at microsoft for example, The reason the initial investors in and employees of microsoft are rich now is that they helped create a company which changed technology permantly, prior to windows the only people who could use computers were programmers. The nvestors put thier hard earned money into the company and the employees put in thier time. Don't they have the right to enjoy thier success? Who are you to say that thier money has to go to people who haven't contributed as much to society?

marg6043-

1. Bush continues to push for new nuclear weapons but he can tell other countries that nuclear weapons are wrong.

Do you really think that countries like Irn and North Korea should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

2.Bush proposes weakening Head Start.President Bush proposes changing the specific federal outlays to block grants that will give states more "flexibility" to spend the money.

Can you provide any proof as to this claim or is this an opinon?

3.Bush obstructs September 11 investigation.The commission complains of interference and noncooperation from all over the administration, noting that "problems that have arisen so far with the Department of Defense are becoming particularly serious."

What evidence can you present to support your allegations that this diffuculty with the DOD is the result of President Bush's orders?

4.Bush exposes an undercover CIA agent in an act of petty vengeance.

Again what proof do you have that the agents identity was leaked by President Bush or on his orders?

5.Bush threatens veto if Congress overturns new FCC rules.But Bush isn't one to let something like "the will of the people" get in the way of his pro-corporate agenda.

Obviously you disagree with his decision to veto this bill, but is that proof of a lack of intelligence? The fact is the President is sometimes required to act contrary to the will of the people if he believs that complying with that will would be detrimental to the nation.

6.Bush creates a system where people can invest in the possibility of terror attacks and international upheaval.

Actually that was a proposal by DARPA which was based on the idea that collective sytems (like the stock exchange) are very good at projecting and predicted complex behaviors. President Bush had nothing to do with that

7.Bush shuts down nuclear weapons advisory panel.

While it s clear that you disagree with this decision why does it make him stupid?

8.Bush promotes a federal ban on gay marriage.Bush attacks gay marriage, suggesting that his administration is working on a way to make it illegal everywhere in the country.

Again this is a matter of preference not intelligence. Personally I support the ban on gay marriage as a marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. Even in societies which were openly supportve of homosexuality ( such as sparta and athens in the 1st millenia) A marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman

9.Bush proposes cuts to Medicare funding for cancer drugs.

I believe you are misinterperting his proposal

10.Bush seeks retribution for judges who use their discretion in sentencing.Laws that restrict the ability of judges to use their discretion when sentencing criminals can be the source of grave miscarriages of justice.

I have yet to see him seek "retribution" against any judges. As for mandatory minimums for violent felons I dont see the problem with insuring that all violent felons do hard time as opposed to just the poor ones.

11.Bush gives oil companies in Iraq blanket immunity from lawsuits.But Bush ensures that oil companies can engage in all the abuse they want .

You have no idea what you are talking about here.

12.Bush proposes eliminating protections for historical sites from highway projects

.

Ummm for the what 4th 5th time could you show some proof of this?

13.Bush pushes plan to make it easier for timber companies to plunder national forests.

Define plunder. The nations ecological protection has in many cases gone too far
for an example of this see the following article.
www.cnn.com...
Creating a balance between environmental concerns and commercial concerns requires constant adjustment

14.Bush uses EPA funds to make campaign ads. He care not for the enviroment.

Doesn't anybody cit sources anymore?

15.Bush starts new public relations campaign on Iraq.creating a new public relations push to make people feel better about the soldier-per-day death rate since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished."

Tryng to make people feel better is wrong how?

16. Bush's economic adviser, N. Gregory Mankiw, says the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas is sometimes a good thing.

From a gross economics standpoint it is in some circumstances.

Browha- The fact is when we went into Afghanistan many of the al qeuda terrorists fled the country. It would have been nearly impossible to track them all down, so instead by invading Iraq, they were drawn to that country. Rather than trying to find them they came to us. The fact is the reason 9/11 happened is as old as warfare itself, if you dont take the war to the enemy they will bring the war to you.
As for Nasa yes there is a whole other world out there But who else has the budget? Can the ESA spend even a tenth as much as NASA in devolpment costs? As for your comment that

Colonization of planets is never going to be really practical, it would take too much energy to get to any habitable planet in a reasonable amount of time (f=ma), too much time, etc...
It's not going to happen, the only place we will habit in the next thousand years is perhaps Mars or Venus

What will and will not be possible or practical in the next 1000 years noone knows (myself included) however I do know that all technological advancements are based on those of the past and that the work NASA is doing now will be the foundation for any future technologies.

So, MWM, is there no response to the comments I made in this thread about a page ago?

Well browha If your referring to the frequency of terrorist attacks, your supposition of a major attack this summer and the idea that the FBIs undercover arrests indicate that some foreign terrorists are still attempting to operate on U.S. soil there is some validity to what you have said. However I believe it may have been part of a two-prong approach. By invading Iraq, as I have said, the U.S. diverted many terroists from coming to the U.S. In order to combat those already here, or those who have arrived since the Patriot Act has gven the Law enforcement agencies more power to find and arrest these individuals. However the fact remains that many Iranians, Afghanis, and Syrians who would have otherwise come to the U.S. are fighting in Iraq nstead which in my opinion is a win.

Yes, but still, there is no evidence for that..
If anything, the invasion in Iraq has drastically increased the number of 'terrorists'... Busloads of ordinary men, fighting the Muslim cause, went from Syria, Iran, etc, into Iraq to help with the insurgent's efforts. It does not mean they had any intention of doing anything in America..
I personally believe that any Al-Qaeda cells operating in america, or planned to operate in America, will continue to do so, rather than being diverted for what is an extremely trivial reason.
I was, however, refering to the comments I made about your signature.

Well browha I assume that jesus spoke aramaic as that was the language of the regon at that time, although he may have spoke latin as well. If you think my signature is arrogant thats your problem, that is my belief, and since both my God and my Country give me the right to believe anything I choose, there isn't much you can do about it. As for whether any Al queda cells in America have left the country, I never said they did just that those on the way here may have been diverted. Finally my belief is any man who is a "foreign fighter" in Iraq would have eventually either participated in or supported an attack on U.S. soil.

[edit on 8-7-2004 by mwm1331]