Quote:
Every argument seems to be that Bush will take away civil rights, set himself up as a dictator, and lead America down the path of Germany under Hitler.
There are many other arguments and people mentioned some in response. But I'm going to talk about this argument instead.
Bush has already proven that he's against liberty and freedom. He has attacked civil rights. That is the important part of the argument.
Fascism is just a label, a subjective abstract category, and the things that people put into it are not identical. Using the word is irrelevant, and generally an attempt to grab attention with shock value. What's really important is the logic for using the word.
As a side note, some supporters of the Iraq war just love to say Saddam was the next Hitler, even though he's no threat to take over the world. The favorite phrase of those who use this argument is 'appeasement,' as if establishing massive sanctions, no fly zones, and a war to push back his invasion of Kuwait could be called 'appeasement.'
I think it's the responsibility of the person being talked about not to be compared to fascists, so I don't see the problem as long as the people doing the comparing try to back it up. The correct response to 'hey, you're attacking civil rights, bulking up the state, and pushing militarism' is not 'but I'm not killing Jews.'
*returns with his sticker*
There's one for the munster. 
As of now, the war in Iraq has cost the United States Government roughly $143 152 000 000 based on estimates from Congressional appropriations. That's about $2034 per household or $508 per person.
Instead of needlessly killing tens (hundreds?) of thousands of innocent civilians, they could have:
- Paid for 18 961 000 children to attend a year of Head Start.
- Provided one year of health insurance to 85 720 000 children.
- Hired 2 481 000 additional public school teachers for one year.
- Provided 6 940 000 students with four-year scholarships at public universities.
- Built 1 288 940 additional housing units.
- Fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for five years.
- Fully funded worldwide AIDS programs for fourteen years.
- Ensured that every child on earth was given basic immunizations for forty-seven years.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16th, 1953
A friend of mine asked me what we could do about Capitalism the other day. There's one simple answer.
Vote Communist.
One of my biggest pet peeves is when people argue like this. What good is it going to do? No one is going to change their opinion because of what someone says online. As for me, I support president Bush 100%. His leadership of this nation is causing the middle-east to become more peaceful and less likely to do terrorist attacks. Unlike what Echo said (the topic starter) the president has not destroyed the nation at all. In fact, he's only built onto it. Besides, Bush already was announced the winner, so why is this topic even still open? To flame? To bash the president? I suggest someone lock this topic before flaming starts.
The good is to express opinions, Brian, unless that's now against some international law. It doesn't have to change anybody's mind because only the very open-minded would change their position anyway.
And just because the election is more or less over, it's still open because it hasn't defied any rules like flaming or bashing, so what's the point in locking it when the original point of the topic is now over?
Expressing opinions is fine, but it's useless to debate unless you are old enough to vote (and most of us aren't).
Really? I'd say the average userbase on this forum is 16/17 years old, but there are ALOT of 18+ members, I mean the majority of the regulars of this forum are. I'm 20 myself, and can name over 20 forummers older than I am and that's just off my head.
His leadership of this nation is causing the middle-east to become more peaceful and less likely to do terrorist attacks.
*turns to the audience* You see, boys and girls, this kind of ignorance is the reason why we have to endure Four More Years.
it's useless to debate unless you are old enough to vote
I discuss politics because it not only interests me, but also because it affects me. My age and nationality are not going to stop me from being concerned about it.
Quote:
Expressing opinions is fine, but it's useless to debate unless you are old enough to vote (and most of us aren't).
It's never useless to debate, no matter your age. While Craig did point out that at least one-third of the board here is voting age, even if it weren't it wouldn't mean that it would be useless to debate. Anything that re-inforces communication skills first of all is not useless. Kids can be major forces for change due to the fact that they can't vote when they put their energies together, but you can't do anything if you don't debate or engage others. Voting is just one way to do things and is just the least you can do once you are able to do it. Being involved and getting your opinions heard & understood, which at times will require debating, is just as important and can even be more important since it can change minds of those that aren't closed off.
Four more years.
Bush won both the popular vote and the electoral vote. It is interesting to note the states that Bush won, and by what margin.
The Democratic party needs to go back to the days of Truman to regain the national appeal that they seem to have lost since the 70's.
Jimro
The Democratic party needs to go back to the days of Truman to regain the national appeal that they seem to have lost since the 70's.
"TRUMAN!? EVERYONE knows that all the Democratic presidents after Roosevelt were EVIL BRAINWASHED COMMUNIST TERRORIST WAR CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
...........
*smacks the person who said that IRL*
It is apparent not all Republicans agree with you. >>
I think it's safe to say we debated that...
Dems go back to the Truman years? What does that mean?
Quote:
Dems go back to the Truman years? What does that mean?
That was before the Civil Rights movement. It was with the Civil Rights movement that the Democratic party began to lose the South, which has continued steadily since. Personally, I don't think they need to do much of anything other than learn what Clinton was able to do: "keep it simple."
Harry Truman was a Democrat who took full responsibility for the decision to drop Nuclear weapons on Japan.
Clinton was a president who felt that armor support for Task Force Ranger in Somalia was not the message the US wanted to send the world.
Truman dropped the bomb to save American lives.
Clinton dropped bombs on a pharmacutical facility to pull media attention away from the Lewinsky scandal.
Truman helped set up NATO to combat Communism, and sent troops into Korea to stop the spread of Communism, and didn't pull out troops when the Chinese over ran us. US troops still aid in the defense of freedom for South Koreans.
The Civil Rights movement didn't kill the Democratic party in the South, abortion did. Southerners are primarily Christian, and primarily pro-life.
Truman was a moral leader, or a bigoted leader by the same standard that GWBush is a bigoted leader. He was a consistent leader, and he was compassionate. He was not the most brilliant of presidents, but he surrounded himself with brilliant advisors.
Jimro
Quote:
Truman was a moral leader, or a bigoted leader by the same standard that GWBush is a bigoted leader.
Truman hated gays (or at least supported a constitutional amendment to take away rights instead of declare them)?
From a historical standpoint Truman's personal faith, and patriotism, played a similar role in his administration as GWBush's administration.
Jimro
Quote:
Harry Truman was a Democrat who took full responsibility for the decision to drop Nuclear weapons on Japan.
...and Bush has taken responsibility for what? Or by that token, is there some Democrat that hasn't taken responsibility for something?
Quote:
Clinton was a president who felt that armor support for Task Force Ranger in Somalia was not the message the US wanted to send the world.
I'm missing the point so spell it out.
Quote:
Truman dropped the bomb to save American lives.
In an attempt to do so anyway.
Quote:
Clinton dropped bombs on a pharmacutical facility to pull media attention away from the Lewinsky scandal.
Oh, so you believe that Saddam Hussein, who was actually trying to kick out the inspectors at the time (unlike in 2003), didn't have weapons of mass destruction then? Just curious because I always find that argument so interesting coming from those who'd call others conspiracy theorists for pointing out similar scenarios in regards to say Homeland Security warnings for example. So point blank, if you want to believe that a Pres you don't/didn't like wasn't doing his job--fine. Just don't complain when others make the same kind of comments because unless you have access to the White House, no one can prove any of those silly conspiracy theories.
Quote:
Truman helped set up NATO to combat Communism, and sent troops into Korea to stop the spread of Communism, and didn't pull out troops when the Chinese over ran us. US troops still aid in the defense of freedom for South Koreans.
He also worked with the U.N. unlike some others. He also did things where he was wanted. 😉
Quote:
The Civil Rights movement didn't kill the Democratic party in the South, abortion did. Southerners are primarily Christian, and primarily pro-life.
Re-read my post. I said "began" and it did. While I was born and raised in NY, my mother was born & raised down in the South during the '50-'60s and can attest to the change starting then (as well as most of my family that lives in various Southern states as most of them didn't move to a Northern state like my mom did). 😉
Most people in the North are Christians and most are "pro-life," too. The difference is only in the fact that some people will seperate their personal beliefs from what others can be allowed to do while others will not.
Quote:
Truman was a moral leader, or a bigoted leader by the same standard that GWBush is a bigoted leader. He was a consistent leader, and he was compassionate. He was not the most brilliant of presidents, but he surrounded himself with brilliant advisors.
I don't know Truman's views well enough to call him bigoted. It wouldn't surprise me if he was considering the level of bigotry in the U.S. at the time he was President was much worse then than it is now. As for a "moral leader," it would depend on his views (and actions to a large degree concerning their views). Unless the person is one of the few politicians that does not lie, does not harm others, lacks prejudices toward other people, etc. the person has lost the claim to be a "moral leader." A "moral leader" should be even more "moral" than those people the person leads. Personally, I don't think a President of the U.S. could ever fit the bill of "moral leader" so you'll have a tough sell on that with me. If I want a "moral leader," that's what I'd go to church to find, not the President. Just like in a business, I'm concerned with what the person does in terms of my economics, rights, security, etc. not what the person necessarily thinks. If I went based on what a person thinks, I'd never support any politician and basically would wait until I'm 35 so that I could vote for myself. 😛 Presidents are usually consistent leaders so that doesn't mean much to me.
Clinton was a president who felt that armor support for Task Force Ranger in Somalia was not the message the US wanted to send the world.
I'm missing the point so spell it out.
16 Americans died on a UN mission to take out warlords in Mogadishu. The theater commander had requested armor support (that means tanks and or other armored fighting vehicles) to support Task Force Ranger. The guidence was "this is a peacekeeping mission, we don't want to appear agressive" and the request was denied.
Just as a side note, Because we got a bloody nose in Somalia, both the US and the UN, not one of the 5 major powers in the UN wanted to send troops into Rwanda to stop the genocide commencing there.
Your statement that civil rights began the degredation of the Democrats popularity in the South doesn't make sense to me as African Americans directly benefitted from the civil rights movement, have a huge population base in the South, and care deeply about abortion. It is one of the issues that white and black southerners agree on.
The major power shift in the south didn't start happening until the 1980's. In 1980 the "South" had 20 Democrat Sentors and 6 Republicans, in 1994, it was 17 and 9. In 2004, it's 17 Republicans and 9 Democrats. The dates of transfer of power closer match the abortion debate (Roe Vs. Wade in 1973, 7 years prior to the 1980 election), and the rise of the Christian Coalition, than they do for the civil rights movement.
Your mother's experience is valid, and I'm sure she has a good point, but the way I read the evidence doesn't support her conclusion.
Jimro
African Americans in the South (like the rest of the country) primarily vote Democratic and have ever since the civil rights movement when originally they used to primarily vote Republican due to the Civil War & Reconstruction. The South currently still goes Republican due to the way Whites vote much of the time despite this, much to the dismay of many Blacks I know that live there. Currently the Democratic "strategy" has been "we need to be within a certain percentage point in the White vote so that the Black vote will make the difference in our favor." That's the basically reality of the situation throughout the country.
As for abortion, that's only a major issue when it comes to voting for those who are single-issue minded or have it as a non-negotiable thing (unless both candidates have the same view). There are people like that for all races/ethnicities, but those aren't close to the majority of people. I do know that it can make a difference if the voting is close though.
The shift is due to people's attitudes changing to be more accepting of the opposing-side instead of staying strictly loyal and it's something that happens over time, so results will not be immediate and only continues if things happen to make it continue--abortion I know is one of them. It was cool to be "liberal," but over time it has supposedly become a bad thing.
Every year the blacks seem to just disappear into the limelight. They always vote Democrat so the Dems take them for granted and it seems some of the blacks don't like...maybe now they'll start to become more vocal and more independent of the Democratic party...
The new group of voters they want to appease is the Latino/Mexican/Hispanic vote (Whichever they preferred to be called. Tell me so I don't offend)...who could possibly become the majority in America...eh...maybe...
The Republican party is attracting more and more Blacks in rural and suburban areas, areas that used to be strong Democrat territory. Republicans have pretty much maintained a stranglehold on rural white communities.
The last stronghold of the Democrats are major metropolitan areas on the west coast and northeast. However most cities in any state have a high constituency of democrats.
Jimro
yo i dont see why people like bush
Quote:
yo i dont see why people like bush
If you read this topic top to bottom you'd see why.
