Re-elect Bush ?

[Guttermouth]

Originally Said by Bleed Black

1.Raised medicare drastically, helping millions of elderly people get the medical treatments that they need.
2.Incorrect. He helped madicare lots.
3.To whom or what.
4.Look up to my reasonings to Ver's post.
5.He did not alienate women, he just signed a bill (Passed by Congress, so your blame cannot solely be on him) that says that women cannot murder their babies. I think a lot of people agree with me on this one.

1. Before Clinton left office, he had a considerable medicare increase lined up. One of Bush's first accomplishments was to warp the bill to significantly less of an increase, then pass it off as his good work. I bill medicare for a living...my entire office was disappointed.

2. He seemingly "helped" medicare, but he cut back medicAID (free insurance for those in financial need). He made the standards of eligibility higher, so you have to be damn near living in a box to qualify.

3. Federal financial aid for students. He raised the standards of qualifying (just like with medicaid).

4. He DECREASED taxes for the rich minority. If he's cutting back funding for those in need, how does he find the extra room in our budget to spare his friends from taxes??

5. I'm not even getting into an abortion debate :P

[Macster]

cstoll said
Actually, the Founding Fathers did not want the people in control. They didn't trust the people. And, to be honest, I wouldn't trust the general public to be informed enough to make decisions for the country.

Our country was never intended to be a democracy. It's a republic.

Constitution (which never uses the word democracy):
Article IV, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

James Madison:
... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths

And one more by Thomas Jefferson, this one about Christianity and our government:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."(in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.)

yes, I know that the forefathers never really intended for absolute democracy but I say it is necessary....this system is too corrupt and it doesn't work anymore. Besides, public education was created so that our people would be able to vote somewhat intelligently. Also...I think that right before one would vote on a computer....the computer would give them a complete document telling them what they're voting on....just because someone doesn't make as much money as another, it does not classify him as stupid. The public may not be able to learn, but they can be taught to think something through. Indeed we would still have a Senate, but only to call for measures to be taken, yet it should be left to the people's discretion as to whether or not these measures are carried out.

Also, do you not see it in history that people such as the great Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams did NOT attend the making of the Constitution. They didn't trust it and as Henry put it, "I think I smell a rat!" The Constitution was put together by rich snobs such as Andrew Hamilton (who actually gave a 5 hour speech supporting an aristocratic government....with no results, thank God!). The Federalists became a corrupt government by passing laws to make immigrants wait some 14 years or so to become a citizen because the poorer immigrants supported the Jeffersonian Democrat-Republicans (I believe that was the name of the party, you could also call them antifederalists). The Federalists also had a law (forgot name) passed in the 1790's that would allow anyone to be arrested for speaking against the government (a couple of antifederalists in Congress WERE arrrested)-and now you see, our government was already moving to corruptness even when the CONSTITUTION was written. Of course, this was after Washington...who WARNED against political parties because they would tear the nation apart (the civil war) and because of the possible corruptness that could follow. Washington also warned that our own politics could make us an easier target for foriegn powers...that makes me a little nervous....you can call me paranoid, dillusional, or whatever, but I know that our government is just no good. It needs a change, however, that will probably never happen. We have hung ourselves and the Great Experiment has failed....also, why do we call it the Great Democratic Experiment if we aren't a DEMOCRACY....

[verilon]

Originally Said by 4degrees

Verilon, I don't know which party they said. They said the opposing party to Bush. I am not sure what it is. They said he has done more than the opposing party has done in several years. I read what you said about him. But is all this stuff actual facts, or just generalized opinions?

Ah, Ok then. They're Democrats.

And these are indeed facts, not opinions. At least most of what I wrote I know to be true.

Originally Said by Guttermouth

2. He seemingly "helped" medicare, but he cut back medicAID (free insurance for those in financial need). He made the standards of eligibility higher, so you have to be damn near living in a box to qualify.

This I can vouch for, having been in that position recently.

[verilon]

Originally Said by Macster

yes, I know that the forefathers never really intended for absolute democracy but I say it is necessary....this system is too corrupt and it doesn't work anymore.

With our system as is, it is impossible to convert the US to a true democracy. It never was one, and never will be.

The public may not be able to learn, but they can be taught to think something through.

Your statement is contradictory. You cannot teach to those that cannot learn; the success of the former requires the latter.

Indeed we would still have a Senate, but only to call for measures to be taken, yet it should be left to the people's discretion as to whether or not these measures are carried out.

...That's what the House of Representatives is for.

Also, do you not see it in history that people such as the great Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams did NOT attend the making of the Constitution. They didn't trust it and as Henry put it, "I think I smell a rat!" The Constitution was put together by rich snobs such as Andrew Hamilton (who actually gave a 5 hour speech supporting an aristocratic government....with no results, thank God!).

Funny, then, how the system is supposed to be set where the people are supposed to be the ones with the most power and the federal government with the least.. Are you sure Henry and Adams weren't simply elitists?

<snip>

And this is why they trashed the thing before the Constitution (I forget the name of it at the moment).

Of course, this was after Washington...who WARNED against political parties because they would tear the nation apart (the civil war) and because of the possible corruptness that could follow. Washington also warned that our own politics could make us an easier target for foriegn powers...that makes me a little nervous....you can call me paranoid, dillusional, or whatever, but I know that our government is just no good.

Our policy isn't what's making us a target though - it's our foreign "policy."

also, why do we call it the Great Democratic Experiment if we aren't a DEMOCRACY....

Why do we call ourselves a democracy when we're a democratic republic? It's all the same.

[cstoll]

Macster said: Besides, public education was created so that our people would be able to vote somewhat intelligently.

Me: Actually, I'm not so sure about that. In everything I've read on literacy studies, early education was involved with social control and morality.

Macster said: Also...I think that right before one would vote on a computer....the computer would give them a complete document telling them what they're voting on....The public may not be able to learn, but they can be taught to think something through.

Me: No document transported to the voter's screen could fill him in on the complexities of all kinds of issues (and who would write the document? who would include what information to present? and from what angle?). Despite how corrupt many politicians seem and probably are, they are not all corrupt--many of them are well-educated and well-informed. Politicians have jobs doing these things because they are truly full-time jobs: we could not do them in our spare time (friends who worked as interns in political offices report working long, long hours). And teaching people to think critically is tremendously difficult: ask any teacher who has attempted it.

Macster: but I know that our government is just no good. We have hung ourselves and the Great Experiment has failed....also, why do we call it the Great Democratic Experiment if we aren't a DEMOCRACY....

Me: I think Verilon responded well to the "why do we call it such-and-such" business. People can give names to whatever they want, but the creators of the Constitution clearly intended a republic. Why do you think our government is "just no good"? I don't think it's perfect, far from it, but why is it simply rotten? You don't see any progress at all from when it started to where it is now?

[Yugoloth]

Verilon, the tax cuts that Bush made weren't all solely for the benefit of the rich.

The income tax cuts were. But then, the top 10% wage earners in the US pay 90% of the income taxes collected. So, reducing income tax at all basically means a tax cut for the wealthy.

Another of Bush's tax cuts was the reduction of the estate tax. The estate tax is a ridiculously exorbitant tax in inheritances. If your father keeled over and left more than $500,000 (that's $500,000 total assets, not just liquid cash), then the feddle gummint swiped 60% of it. So, reducing the estate tax would, of course, benefit the wealthy. However, picture this. A farmer whose family has owned his farm for generations has a few good years and expands his operation, pushing the value above $500,000. Then he dies, intending for his son to take over the business. However, after inheriting the farm, the son has to pay the government $300,000 dollars. Farmers don't make lots of money, so there's no way he'll be able to pay that much. Now, he has to sell his family farm to some huge corporation, and he's out of work and has no farm.

Besides that, the estate tax will get lower until 2010, at which point it will turn around and rise back up above the original level.

[verilon]

Originally Said by Yugoloth

Verilon, the tax cuts that Bush made weren't all solely for the benefit of the rich.

I'm not talking about Bush specifically, but the Republican economic stance in general.

The income tax cuts were. But then, the top 10% wage earners in the US pay 90% of the income taxes collected. So, reducing income tax at all basically means a tax cut for the wealthy.

Yes, that is true, but how much are the bottom 90% paying in taxes out of their income as opposed to the top 10%? Two years ago, there wasn't a whole lot of difference... Do you have any stats?

Another of Bush's tax cuts was the reduction of the estate tax. The estate tax is a ridiculously exorbitant tax in inheritances. If your father keeled over and left more than $500,000 (that's $500,000 total assets, not just liquid cash), then the feddle gummint swiped 60% of it. So, reducing the estate tax would, of course, benefit the wealthy. However, picture this. A farmer whose family has owned his farm for generations has a few good years and expands his operation, pushing the value above $500,000. Then he dies, intending for his son to take over the business. However, after inheriting the farm, the son has to pay the government $300,000 dollars. Farmers don't make lots of money, so there's no way he'll be able to pay that much. Now, he has to sell his family farm to some huge corporation, and he's out of work and has no farm.

Which is what Democrats want to avoid.

Besides that, the estate tax will get lower until 2010, at which point it will turn around and rise back up above the original level.

And this is helpful how...?

[Blackass]

Originally Said by verilon

Evidence?



He's a Republican.. Granted, yet, the economy is on the rise. But guess what it's because of? WAR.



A quick fix, yes, but it doesn't do well for the majority in the long term, as opposed to Democratic policy.



-blinks- I was in New Mexico at the time of the talks. We very well could have.



I don't like that the religious right are extremists. Furthermore, he's religious, big deal, whoopdedoo, I couldn't care less. What I DO care about is the Separation of Church and State.



Wrong. If that were so, then the FIRST amendment we have to the Constitution wouldn't allow for freedom of religion. We don't need the Bible to set moralistic views.



Right.. but not everyone has equak rights. There is gender discrimination in marriage rights.



.

We have found factories capeable of producing such weapons. Therefore, Sadaam could have had them in the next ten years. Who knows?

So the economy is on the rise because of war? I think not. I think that the econconomy is running its cycle again.

Why wouldnt it be good for the long term.

Evidence.

First, the religious right is out there, but they are not extreme. Just more extreme than we are used to. Has that line between church and state been crossed.

No but alot of our morals come from the Bible. Just because the Bible is the most moral source out there.

We all have our inaliable rights. Unfortunately, marriage is not one of them.

[verilon]

Originally Said by Bleed Black

We have found factories capeable of producing such weapons. Therefore, Sadaam could have had them in the next ten years. Who knows?

Capable of doing so, yet none found. Sounds a bit suspicious, to me.

So the economy is on the rise because of war? I think not. I think that the econconomy is running its cycle again.

Actually, if you look at the economic cycles, it has a boost each beginning term of a presidency. Which, coincidentally, happens to be the same time that the US goes into some form of war. War does boost the economy.

Why wouldnt it be good for the long term.

Because Democratic policy seeks to help the less-fortunate before those that are well off. Republican policy does not seek to help the less-fortunate. Period.

Evidence.

You don't watch the news, do you?

First, the religious right is out there, but they are not extreme. Just more extreme than we are used to. Has that line between church and state been crossed.

Funny, I thought fundamentalists were extremists. And yes, the line between church and state has been crossed by the institution of the Marriage Protection Act, stating that since marriage is a religious institution, there should be no gay marriages. There cannot constitutionally be a law like that. I just pray that the House and Senate veto this.

No but alot of our morals come from the Bible. Just because the Bible is the most moral source out there.

Evidence?

We all have our inaliable rights. Unfortunately, marriage is not one of them.

The pursuit of happiness is. I find that a marriage to a partner of the male gender is one way to seek happiness. I am not alone in this.

[Blackass]

Originally Said by verilon

Capable of doing so, yet none found. Sounds a bit suspicious, to me.



Actually, if you look at the economic cycles, it has a boost each beginning term of a presidency. Which, coincidentally, happens to be the same time that the US goes into some form of war. War does boost the economy.



Because Democratic policy seeks to help the less-fortunate before those that are well off. Republican policy does not seek to help the less-fortunate. Period.



You don't watch the news, do you?



Funny, I thought fundamentalists were extremists. And yes, the line between church and state has been crossed by the institution of the Marriage Protection Act, stating that since marriage is a religious institution, there should be no gay marriages. There cannot constitutionally be a law like that. I just pray that the House and Senate veto this.



Evidence?



The pursuit of happiness is. I find that a marriage to a partner of the male gender is one way to seek happiness. I am not alone in this.

Even so, he was still capable of doing it.

Last time i checked spending billions of dollars didn't help the economy.

Yes, so? That has no relevance. How is the democratic plan more helpful in the long run? Is it because we give inmates a stay at the country club instead of a jail? Or because we give bums money?

I know there was some tension but I seriously doubt we would go into two wars at once.

Actually, the seperation of church and state was a supreme court ruling, therefore it is technically not a law. Furthermore, that law would be constitutional if we amend the constitution to prevent same sex marriages. The Marriage Protection Act hasn't been passed anyway.

Well can you name another book who tells you to love your enemy? Actually, scratch that. Name another book more moral.

A good point, but even so, some people may not think that marriage is a pursuit of happiness.

[JT11]

Did anyone hear about the unanimous weekend agreement by the 25 members of Iraq's Governing Council on the draft of an interim constitution?

With the unanimous vote of the Governing Council--including Kurdish and fundamentalist Shiite leaders--there is now an Iraqi national consensus on the timing and shape of future self-rule.

What's more, that consensus is a remarkably liberal one. We've heard a lot of nonsense over the past two years that Muslims aren't ready for self-government, and that the Bush Administration was imperial in trying to "impose" it. But Iraqis of all stripes didn't need a lot of prodding to draft what is far and away the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, including what a senior coalition official calls "an extraordinary bill of rights." Those include the rights to free speech and assembly, the free exercise of religion, habeas corpus and a fair and open trial. There will be gender equality and civilian control of the military. The interim government to be elected by next January will be parliamentary in nature, with a weak executive composed of a president and two deputies.

[jyotishi]

the council was picked by the US...yes they are moving forward, but still the administration had its hands dipped into it to make sure they do not 'select' a constitution too close to Islamic law..Saudi Arabia has islamic law as its principal source of order, why not iraq? Answer : Iraq does not pump so much oil as Saudi Arabia..,

[Yugoloth]

Originally Said by verilon

I'm not talking about Bush specifically, but the Republican economic stance in general.

Yes, that is true, but how much are the bottom 90% paying in taxes out of their income as opposed to the top 10%? Two years ago, there wasn't a whole lot of difference... Do you have any stats?

Which is what Democrats want to avoid.

And this is helpful how...?

Bush's tax cuts are representative of the Republican economic stance. Maybe I didn't percieve that comment exactly the way you meant me to.

I also don't exactly see level with you on your second comment, and the numbers I gave you were stats. There wasn't a whole lot of difference between what?

And no, the democrats don't want to avoid the scenario that I presented to you. They want to collect more taxes, so the estate tax furthers their agenda. They fought hard to keep the Republicans from cutting the estate tax, and thanks to their resistance, the estate tax cut is only temporary.

[JT11]

Having spent quite a bit of time in Saudi Arabia, I can understand the US not wanting Iraq to be like Saudi. Bottom line Islamic law is cruel, it is not very woman friendly. I am curious on your line of thinking about Islamic law and oil. Can you expound on that a little?

Originally Said by jyotishi

the council was picked by the US...yes they are moving forward, but still the administration had its hands dipped into it to make sure they do not 'select' a constitution too close to Islamic law..Saudi Arbaria has islamic law as its principal source of order, why not iraq? Answer : Iraq does not pump so much oil as Saudi Arabia..,

Democrats believe in tax and spend. They consider our money, "their money". Everyone of them says they would repel the tax cut. They don't believe in controlling their spending, just taking more of our money.

Originally Said by Yugoloth

Bush's tax cuts are representative of the Republican economic stance. Maybe I didn't percieve that comment exactly the way you meant me to.

I also don't exactly see level with you on your second comment, and the numbers I gave you were stats. There wasn't a whole lot of difference between what?

And no, the democrats don't want to avoid the scenario that I presented to you. They want to collect more taxes, so the estate tax furthers their agenda. They fought hard to keep the Republicans from cutting the estate tax, and thanks to their resistance, the estate tax cut is only temporary.

[verilon]

Originally Said by Bleed Black

Last time i checked spending billions of dollars didn't help the economy.

Strange as it sounds, it does.

Yes, so? That has no relevance. How is the democratic plan more helpful in the long run? Is it because we give inmates a stay at the country club instead of a jail? Or because we give bums money?

It is because Democrats lean more toward tax cuts for those that are not wealthy. The latter two of your responses her are irrelevant and red herrings.

I know there was some tension but I seriously doubt we would go into two wars at once.

Look at WWI and WWII and then Vietnam mixed with the Cold War. History continues to repeat itself because our politicians are morons.

Actually, the seperation of church and state was a supreme court ruling, therefore it is technically not a law.

Constitution says there shall be no governmental establishment furthering the institution of religion. It's a Supreme Court ruling clarifying existing law.

Furthermore, that law would be constitutional if we amend the constitution to prevent same sex marriages.

No, it goes against the Bill of Rights. Therefore, UNconstitutional.

The Marriage Protection Act hasn't been passed anyway.

I know.

Well can you name another book who tells you to love your enemy? Actually, scratch that. Name another book more moral.

Why should people base their morals on a book?

A good point, but even so, some people may not think that marriage is a pursuit of happiness.

I bet if you asked people, the push to amend laws to include gay marriages, it would be a pursuit of happiness. I bet if you were able to ask people about getting married in the beginning, they might consider marriage a pursuit of happiness.

Originally Said by Yugoloth

Bush's tax cuts are representative of the Republican economic stance. Maybe I didn't percieve that comment exactly the way you meant me to.

No disagreement here.

I also don't exactly see level with you on your second comment, and the numbers I gave you were stats. There wasn't a whole lot of difference between what?

First, this is going off of what I was taught in economics.. Second, I should have been more clear - do you have any stats on how much people are paying in taxes in their respective economic groups?

And no, the democrats don't want to avoid the scenario that I presented to you. They want to collect more taxes, so the estate tax furthers their agenda. They fought hard to keep the Republicans from cutting the estate tax, and thanks to their resistance, the estate tax cut is only temporary.

Do you have something that you can cite for my review?

[cstoll]

Bleedblack said:
Well can you name another book who tells you to love your enemy? Actually, scratch that. Name another book more moral.

Me:
Stating that another book is "more moral" is an impossible argument to make. We're going to end up defining morality differently. So, I'll go back to the "love your enemy" bit.

Plenty of teachings about loving your enemy pre-date Jesus and plenty of others were not dependent upon Christian influence.

Buddhism:
Shame on him who strikes, greater shame on him who strikes back. Let us live happily, not hating those who hate us. Let us therefore overcome anger by kindness, evil by good, falsehood by truth.

Taoism:
Return love for hatred. Otherwise, when a great hatred is reconciled, some of it will surely remain.

Hinduism:
A noble soul will ever exercise compassion even towards those who enjoy injuring others or those of cruel deeds when they are actually committing them--for who is without fault?

[JT11]

Originally Said by verilon

It is because Democrats lean more toward tax cuts for those that are not wealthy.

Can you tell me the last time a democrat lowered taxes? I am by no means wealthy. I'm in the military and I've received checks the last 2 years.

Originally Said by verilon

Constitution says there shall be no governmental establishment furthering the institution of religion. It's a Supreme Court ruling clarifying existing law.

Actually the phrase "separation of church and state" cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution, though the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," is used as the basis for the idea of separation. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion NOT any protection of the people FROM religion. It is also true that the purpose of the First Amendment was to protect religion from government (ie the Church of England) and not the reverse.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them, asking why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksiving, as had been done by Washington and Adams before him. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which lead to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

[verilon]

Originally Said by JT11

Can you tell me the last time a democrat lowered taxes? I am by no means wealthy. I'm in the military and I've received checks the last 2 years.

I admit that I might be wrong. Second, my dad's in the military. He has been longer than I've been alive. I've had to try to keep up with stuff like this.

Actually the phrase "separation of church and state" cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution, though the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," is used as the basis for the idea of separation. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion NOT any protection of the people FROM religion. It is also true that the purpose of the First Amendment was to protect religion from government (ie the Church of England) and not the reverse.

Hence, I said that the Separation of Church and State was a clarification of existing law (which you just stated above).

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them, asking why he would not proclaim national days of fasting and thanksiving, as had been done by Washington and Adams before him. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which lead to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

Right. The gay marriage amendment would infringe upon that very ruling because of the basis that it's been applied on. IIRC, there is some scriptural base cited in the proposed document.

[JT11]

We may disagree on our interpretations of the establishment clause, but I appreciate debating this with you in a thoughtful manner.

Originally Said by verilon

I admit that I might be wrong. Second, my dad's in the military. He has been longer than I've been alive. I've had to try to keep up with stuff like this.



Hence, I said that the Separation of Church and State was a clarification of existing law (which you just stated above).



Right. The gay marriage amendment would infringe upon that very ruling because of the basis that it's been applied on. IIRC, there is some scriptural base cited in the proposed document.

[verilon]

Originally Said by JT11

We may disagree on our interpretations of the establishment clause, but I appreciate debating this with you in a thoughtful manner.

As with you.