Can Bush lie for 4 more years?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I still don't believe you. How long will you continue to lie?


Don't continue to call me a liar without citing examples to support your argument. And I stopped beating her only about 3 or 4 minutes after she was dead. Honestly.




posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Geeze, Delta!!!

Quit lying to the ATS/BTS community about your wives!!! You've mis-lead us in every possible direction! Just come forward and admit it, so we can arrest you.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 09:58 AM
link   
In response to Deltachoas:

I will admit that when I cast my vote for George Bush on Tuesday, it will be simply a way of voting the lessor of two evils, in a state that will have a very close race.

You do have thought out opinions, about the candidates, but there is more at stake this time.

I am a conservative, probably more Liberatarian than Republican. I feel that some of GWB's most obvious flaws (in my opinion) are simply going to war, far too small of a tax cut, and enlarging our government. These points being said, I have to say that I was raised democrat, and gathered my conservative views on my own. I know both sides of the fence at least a little. The tactics used by democrats, such as personal attacks, and media attacks are far more harsh than those brought forth by republicans. (Even though it comes from both sides). I know our country would be better off with more liberty, and less government involvement.

This is the reason more is at stake this time. We need more liberty. Right now is a crucial time regarding this. More than likely, 4 justice seats will open up in the Supreme court in the next few years. These are lifetime positions that are by appointment of the president. We need conservative judges placed there. I don't care what point you are trrying to make this election year with third party candidates. If you were thinking, you would place your vote where it counts. Kerry, or Bush. One of those two will win, and the winner of this election will have an influence that extends for years to come. Supreme Court Justices interpret the constitutionality of laws and rulings. This is about our freedom indicated to us in the constitution.

Sorry for any spelling errors, I did this quick. Also, sorry it took so long to respond delta.....



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
In response to Deltachoas:

I will admit that when I cast my vote for George Bush on Tuesday, it will be simply a way of voting the lessor of two evils, in a state that will have a very close race.

You do have thought out opinions, about the candidates, but there is more at stake this time.

I am a conservative, probably more Liberatarian than Republican. I feel that some of GWB's most obvious flaws (in my opinion) are simply going to war, far too small of a tax cut, and enlarging our government. These points being said, I have to say that I was raised democrat, and gathered my conservative views on my own. I know both sides of the fence at least a little. The tactics used by democrats, such as personal attacks, and media attacks are far more harsh than those brought forth by republicans. (Even though it comes from both sides). I know our country would be better off with more liberty, and less government involvement.

This is the reason more is at stake this time. We need more liberty. Right now is a crucial time regarding this. More than likely, 4 justice seats will open up in the Supreme court in the next few years. These are lifetime positions that are by appointment of the president. We need conservative judges placed there. I don't care what point you are trrying to make this election year with third party candidates. If you were thinking, you would place your vote where it counts. Kerry, or Bush. One of those two will win, and the winner of this election will have an influence that extends for years to come. Supreme Court Justices interpret the constitutionality of laws and rulings. This is about our freedom indicated to us in the constitution.

Sorry for any spelling errors, I did this quick. Also, sorry it took so long to respond delta.....


I could not conscionably vote for Bush, but I am in a Bush state, so a vote for Kerry would be a waste even if I did believe in him, which I most certainly don't. I'm writing in McCain because I'm pretty sure that he'll be vying for the Republican nomination in '08, and whatever support I can give him, at whatever time, will help.

Just a question about the tax cut. You think they were not big enough? Do you really think that supply-side economics are still based on viable theory? This assumes that the wealthy will invest in the relatively un-weathy, and in the institutions that employ them. I'm sorry, but investments are not going into wholly American companies anymore. If they were, I would agree, as I did before I did some into-looking. It doesn't matter how much money the wealthy put in the banks if the middle and lower class don't have any of their own to save, which more and more, they do not. Things are becoming more expensive, as the dollar becomes weaker. This is a double-inflation, which I believe is being temporarily halted for the benefit of those who still have to gain much by the illusion they are creating. The truth is, nothing is a free market anymore. The market, all markets, are being manipulated by the conglomerates and networks of individuals that own them.

But back to simpler terms. Bush has spent our tax dollars on the war at a rate of over 1 billion dollars per week. What kind of investment is going to yield a rate of return similar to this? What faith can we have in the idea that our wealthy investing in American interests (which they're not) can produce an economic upslide comparative to this rate of spending? And the war is not going to end soon, you know. Also, our trade deficit has raised from around $41 Billion per month to $54 Billion per month from last August to this one. How can supply-side economics possibly make up for an additional $154 Billion dollar yearly loss in revenue? Have you wondered why it might be that in May we were paying $2.15/gallon for regular gas at the pump when crude oil was at a record high $45 per barrel, and now we are paying less than $2 per gallon, but the price per barrel of crude is (as of 10/20) $54?

Bush would have you believe that by large companies and ultra-rich individuals investing in small companies, we would turn our economy around to the plus side. All the while, the large companies are forcing a labor deficit out of our favor, to where these small companies cannot afford to pay competitive wages enough to compete with them. As a rule, whenever someone says that investing by large companies into small companies will make the economy grow, this will be a lie. Large companies are like bureaucracy. They exist only to further justify their existence. In order to sustain themselves, they must grow larger, and in order to do that, they must feed. They feed on smaller companies in the form of takeovers, and they feed on market share that is taken from smaller companies who fail.

In addition to the problem of labor deficit, we have seen a year of increased illegal immigration unprecedented to this point. Is this an accident? Not when you consider that Bush had the bright idea of granting amnesty and unconditional US citizenship to over 8 million illegal aliens. Why? Was it because he wanted votes? Partially. But more it was for economic reasons. These people are willing to work for wages that small American business are forced to pay to compete with foreign labor markets. And since our labor force is becoming more and more service based, and requires little skill or training, these are the perfect people for the jobs. Americans who have historically made upwards of $15/hour cannot afford to take a $7 pay cut. Their families would starve. So rather than allow the service industry to fail, which may be the only industry we have left one day, we'll just let people in who will be willing to work for $6.50/hour. This is a raise to them in the thousands of percents. You don't see Canadians clamoring over the border to work in an American McDonalds for this reason. They would be taking a pay cut just as the American would.

The bottom line is that we are losing money at a rate that has never been seen since the depression, and I would guess even before the depression. I suspect this may be by design, because it seems that every decision that is made by big business and industry causes the deficits to increase. The war deficit, the trade deficit, and the labor deficit are all too much for one to reasonably expect supply side economic theory to pull us out of.

But at this rate, even raising taxes would not fix the problems that are causing our great monetary loss. Only reform would make it happen. What the hell, I guess if we're not going to be getting any more money, why tax it?

Know that if you detect from me an insolent tone, it is a cause of my disdain for the current state of affairs, and not in response to your opinion. But I hope this gave you something to consider.





new topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join