Bush's Re-Election Bid Looking Good: A Look at the Numbers

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Tsunami
LOL. For someone who blindly follows his 'leader' no matter how bad he might be (more than slightly reminiscent of the Germans and THEIR illustrious 'leader'), this is the most laughable question I've seen in ages. Brainwashing is fascinating.

Again, I repeat - Anything more than childish rhetoric?
A Hitler reference? I've never heard that before!
You have yet to pick a specific point that I agree on, and explain why I shouldn't. But alas, I shouldn't expect so much from someone who uses "LOL"

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Again, I repeat - Anything more than childish rhetoric?
A Hitler reference? I've never heard that before!
You have yet to pick a specific point that I agree on, and explain why I shouldn't. But alas, I shouldn't expect so much from someone who uses "LOL"

Any more lame retorts?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Tsunami
Any more lame retorts?

You still have yet to answer the original question, so I take that as a "no".
You are doing nothing more than wasting space in this thread, but I do find one thing humorous. You are so overly polarized in politics that you assume that if I think your post is lacking any credibility, I MUST be voting for Bush, and there for agree with everything he does. And I'm the sheep? You are the one with the pavlovian style response to disagreement.

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by phatmonky
You still have yet to answer the original question, so I take that as a "no".
You are doing nothing more than wasting space in this thread, but I do find one thing humorous. You are so overly polarized in politics that you assume that if I think your post is lacking any credibility, I MUST be voting for Bush, and there for agree with everything he does. And I'm the sheep? You are the one with the pavlovian style response to disagreement.

YEAH! THERE you go! You're getting GOOD at this... Now, shoot yourself in the OTHER foot, too!

 

[Zantra]

The bottom line is that Bush was a poor leader pre-9/11, and he's a poor leader post 9/11, but people are focusing on the positive aspects of that incidence and the resultant war because they are "comfortable". Now with his recent "space exploration" ideal, he's trying to sway the vote(and suceeding unfortunately) in taking forcus off of the negative. typical manuever in an election year. Come up with some great plan for exploration just as elections are starting to weigh on people's minds, then slide it to the back burner as soon as he's reelected.

If you completely set aside 9/11, and afghanistan, you're left with a very mediocre leader.

 

[Loren Booda]

For the "comfortable" people:

1. What actual fiscal responsibility has the U. S. upper class toward their poor?

2. May the United States Constitution bestow any rights upon corporations, or upon lethal mechanical contrivances?

3. Do you believe that God blesses the United States above all other nations?

4. Is their no hypocracy in consuming precious resources with large, unadopted families, then denying any options for a destitute rape victim to terminate her pregnancy?

 

[amp]

Russ and Phat probably cried when

that former Sec of treasury came out with his book lambasting Bush, since he was an insider he was cognizant of what was going on. And the things he said in the book that I've heard mentioned by the media are in line with what I saw going on and what a lot of people thought.
*Bush wanted to start a war with Iraq even before 9/11* Who didn't know that?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
For the "comfortable" people:

1. What actual fiscal responsibility has the U. S. upper class toward their poor?

2. May the United States Constitution bestow any rights upon corporations, or upon lethal mechanical contrivances?

3. Do you believe that God blesses the United States above all other nations?

4. Is their no hypocracy in consuming precious resources with large, unadopted families, then denying any options for a destitute rape victim to terminate her pregnancy?

1. None.

2. Huh?

3. No - and where did that come from? It has nothing to do with anything.

4. Maybe. I'm pro choice anyway. In any case, what does that have to do with this thread?

If you completely set aside 9/11, and afghanistan, you're left with a very mediocre leader.

Believe it or not guys, I actually agree with this statement.

 

[amp]

Will Bush still win if America knew how he is

treating the soldiers he has sent into harms way? Heres a snippet of an article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/vest01092004.html

Think of it ... wounded veterans "held captive" ... prevented from seeing people who have a congressional charter to serve them ... not allowed to speak with DAV reps in private, lest their "privacy" be violated ... an administration that regards Disabled American Veterans as security risks.
A government increasingly unable to tell the difference between terrorists and its own citizens.

 

[Loren Booda]

As I see it, those questions I posed delineate typical status-quo Republican policy that the public is willing to compromise for a seemingly better economy.

1. My argument that Democrats are basically a party of need, and Republicans a party of greed. You appear to have confirmed this.

2. Do corporations (fiscal entities) deserve any rights that individuals enjoy? The same question for guns - the only mechanism supposedly referred to in the Constitution. I basically say that individual rights supercede "rights" of other entities.

3. The fundamentalist-religious Right that buoys Bush and supports Armageddon in Israel overwhelmingly takes this stance.

4. Do you think the majority of Republicans would support this rape victim in her right to choose?

 

[Zero]

Somehow, I believe that the government thinks that 'fiscal entities' not only have rights, but are more deserving of rights than the people. Lobbyists have huge power in government, which is fine, I guess, so long as the politicians realize that they are supposed to be our lobby in government. The government is supposed to represent the people, not the corporate interests. When the interest of a corporation is in line with the common good, I have no problem with that idea. When the corporate interest lies in opposition to the interests of the people, then the corporations need to get in line.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Just a point. Unions and other non-corporate organizations have large lobbying staffs in Washington too. We are not quite yet at the corporate state, although I do believe the Bush administration has moved us in that direction.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
1. My argument that Democrats are basically a party of need, and Republicans a party of greed. You appear to have confirmed this.

I see the Democrats as the party of need as well, but that also makes them the party of greed. The Democrats do a version of Robin Hood: 'Vote for us and we'll steal money and give it to you!'

What you are calling greed is people wanting to keep their money. I find that aguement twisted.

2. Do corporations (fiscal entities) deserve any rights that individuals enjoy?

No. Rights are for individuals. The only rights that go to corporations are designed for the individuals in them, not the coproration as an entity.

3. The fundamentalist-religious Right that buoys Bush and supports Armageddon in Israel overwhelmingly takes this stance.

I just don't see this as an issue. Though vocal, religious extremists of all types are in the minority.

4. Do you think the majority of Republicans would support this rape victim in her right to choose?

Dunno - I think more than you expect would though. Most people don't see things as black and white as the two parties try to make them.