Would you care to elaborate?
Personally, I'm offended by the suggestion that my views are 'merely an opinion', whereas yours have some sort of divine backing. Anybody, with any opinion, could claim that. Doesn't make them right.
It seems almost like bigotry.
I suggest you avoid further claims to have 'god' on your side or this will erupt into another argument.
EDIT: Oh yes, before you decide to make a repeat of the previous page, my views of Bush are the same as Vec's (essentially). I'd rather see a president who is not Bush.
Personally, I'm offended by the suggestion that my views are 'merely an opinion', whereas yours have some sort of divine backing. Anybody, with any opinion, could claim that. Doesn't make them right.
I was refering to the historical culture of America in reference to morality.
Here are a few examples.
All laws, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human. ... But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. ... Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine.
James Wilson,
Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice
The law ... dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.
Alexander Hamilton,
Signer of the Constitution
"Where there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community." Benjamin Rush
Signer of Declaration of Independence
This is the idea that murder is murder in all cultures, that universal Law was given to mankind. There are many more examples if you choose to look.
Jimro
"When we play God and decide right and wrong for ourselves, we ignore longstanding cultural, historical, and religious moral guidelines.
Obviously the law of the US cannot take into consideration EVERYONE'S own personal right and wrong, moral and immoral.
So by using cultural/historical morality his position is already validated as "right", even tho your personal view is "wrong" on the same subjects."
While it's true that when "playing god" yeu have to make decisions beyond yeur capability to see all ends, and therefore the "safe" thing to do is just to follow precedents, there's also the fact that yeu *SHOULDN'T* be playing god in the first place because of that very reason.
There's also the fact that the historical and cultural precidents that are "validated" as "right" already, are quite often stupid. Yeu should learn from the past, so yeu're not doomed to repeat it. Tradition, culture and precedents basically mean yeu learned history for the sake of wanting to be doomed to repeat it.
While these are often highly valued, they're also often very stupid. Traditions and cultures are the cause of so many pointless problems, ranging from 5 year old children getting $5,000 cheques in the mail for oil refunds because they were native born, or things like african descendants getting the short end of the stick for ages, or how Quebec is *STILL* trying to seperate from Canada to preserve 'cultural identity', along with their language police.
Sometimes things in the past are simply not worth repeating. The precidents that have been used by Bush so far have been greatly flawed, and he probably should be looking at making his own precidents by doing better than those in history, rather than continuing to insist upon making the exact same mistakes just because they've been made for hundreds of years.
Historically speaking, Hitlar was "right" in all actions related to WW2 if yeu compare him to the historical model of the Romans, and the Ku Klux Klan is "right" because they follow the historical "right" that claimed that blacks should be considered as 'less than human'.
Simply put, yeu're using those longstanding cultural, historical and religious moral guidelines when playing god, because yeu're using them as the basis of the decisions of whot's right and wrong, and therefore forcing yeur views of right and wrong on others, which's the single greatest crime there is.
Really, there aren't too many other crimes in existance. Almost all 'wrongs' come back to forcing yeur view upon someone else, be it murder, theft, religious crusades, or lying, yeu're taking a view that yeu believe to be "right" and not giving someone else an option about whether they should be allowed their own view.
While it's true that my views differ from Bush's, and he's allowed to have his, the difference between us is that I'm not involved in international politics, I'm not forcing my views upon millions of others at gunpoint, and I'm not starting wars.
With a position like his, yeu have alot of responsibility, and he's not being very responsible at all. Yeu *CAN'T* just go with historical moralities at that level of power. Yeu *CAN'T* just say "oh it's in the bible so it must be true" when yeu are a world power. It's irresponsible, and people die because of it.
Unfortunately, people get voted into office not because they know whot's right, or how to make proper decisions. They get voted in because people vote for the same party their parents did for the last 20 years.
Bush isn't a bad leader as such. He can lead people and get them to listen. That's fine. Hitlar and Stalin were a ton better at it though. The problem is that leadership doesn't have anything to do with having any clue about whot yeu're doing. All that matters is charisma and yeur connections to high level people.
Bush has those, so he got into a place of power, but now that he has it, he has no clue how to put it to good use. Rather than learning from past mistakes and figuring out ways to do things better than the last few times, he stands by the mistakes made and then goes and makes them again, even when the situation is so entirely different that it's even a dumber mistake this time around.
Anyways, yeu shouldn't be playing god in the first place, yeu shouldn't base world level politics on religion or blindly following historical "rights" which haven't been right for decades, and yeu shouldn't force yeur views upon others.
In any case, just because a moral position is "right" in historical and cultural views, it doesn't mean it really *IS* right, or we'd all be wearing white hoods with KKK stenciled on them.
As we *AREN'T*, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that maybe, just maybe, history is usually WRONG, since in most cases, the choices of the past were made by those who were even more biased, short sighted and 'evil' than we are today.
The personal views today are in most cases more 'right' than the views in the past were 'right', because we've gone a small bit beyond previous culture forms and know more and are more 'cultured' I guess.
Anyways, I'm just repeating myself now.
*Poofs*
The historical examples you've provided have all been proven wrong by history. Hate (KKK), Lust for power (Romans, Nazi's), etc.
The historical examples I provided haven't. The Bible specifically teaches against the examples you provided. The Bible has not been disproven. Debated, studied, and speculated about, but never disproven.
If it is ok for everyone to make their own morality then we cannot have laws. I say that murder is a good thing, and who are you to force your view on me that it isn't? Let the murderer go, he didn't hurt you or me. The person he killed was only a figment of our imagination anyway.
How about rape being ok? Nobody died, no harm no foul right? It's ok to take what you want because I say so.
Morality and legality are two different yet intertwined subjects. The morality set forth in the Bible has stood the test of time.
I have no intention of forcing my views on you, but why are you trying to force your views on Bush? He has the responsibility to base his decisions on a historically successful moral structure instead of what he thinks is right in his own eyes. Leaders who based their decisions on their own morality include Stalin and Hitler.
Jimro
"I was refering to the historical culture of America in reference to morality."
Not really my fight, but I'd like to refer yeu to my previous post. The historical culture of Amierica is *AWFUL*. There were alot of terrible parts to America's older culture which shouldn't have ever existed, and yeu were far behind the rest of the world culturally for a very long time. Yeu're not there anymore, and shouldn't cling to the mistakes of the past.
"All laws, however, may be arranged in two different classes. 1) Divine. 2) Human. ... But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same Divine source: it is the law of God. ... Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine.
James Wilson,
Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice"
Also note that there's supposed to be a seperation of church and state, or we get the crusades again, or dictatorships. Do yeu really want to admit that Bush using 'God's will' as justification for his actions is exactly the same as the Taliban using 'God's will' as justification for their actions?
I rather doubt that, so do keep in mind that just because things were that way 300 years ago, doesn't mean they should be now. Yeu should be past that.
Yeur quote is also by a SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION, meaning it's a VERY old quote, and therefore doesn't apply to today's standards.
If yeu wish to stand by it though, may I point out the "Eye for an eye" law? Earliest known 'justice'. Or how about the laws with "cut off the hand of a thief; if they steal twice, they won't be doing it anymore", or similar concepts?
There *IS* no law of God. God is still an abstract being, beyond mortal comprehension. The 10 commandments are the only things even remotely close to God's law, and even those are just common sense. I can cover all of them in a single commandment myself:
Katsuni's Law: Thou shalt not oppress the views of others with thine own.
That includes pretty much everything. If they feel they have a right to live, yeu're not allowed to kill them. If they feel they want to kill yeu, they're breaking that law and their view doesn't apply. If they want to steal something that's yeurs and yeu don't want them to, they're breaking the law. If they want to tell yeu yeur religion is "wrong" and stop yeu from practicing it, yet again it's wrong.
"The law ... dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.
Alexander Hamilton,
Signer of the Constitution"
Which goes against my law, which's basically the compression of the 10 commandments, and it also goes against the very reason why the USA was founded in the first place: the escape of a religious view being forced upon them by the law.
The "law of God" doesn't exist when being applied to mortals, and it relies insanely heavily upon yeu following a single religion. If yeu don't happen to follow that religion, then it's *NOT* valid.
Once again, a signer of the constitution who believed that christianity was the only truth, and saw nothing outside of his own perspective. Anything he didn't agree with was wrong according to that quote above basically, because people who make quotes like that also happen to write their own "laws of god".
Once again, the law of god isn't global because it applies only to those who follow that religion. The assumption is that God is a single entity and has a single view, and that we both know and understand that view.
Unfortuantely, the first isn't possible to proove, and the second is false by default. We're mortals, we're not omnipotent, and we can't see all ends. We don't even HAVE a law of god because god doesn't make laws other than "don't worship false idols" basically. Even Jesus broke half the commandments if yeu read carefully, so that puts their validity into pretty high question.
"Where there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community." Benjamin Rush
Signer of Declaration of Independence"
The problem here is that there isn't any laws which are certain and universal in its' operation upon all members of the community. If there were, we wouldn't have such complex, intricate laws that go on for pages and pages and THOUSANDS OF PAGES trying to describe things as small as whot theft is.
Even the official 10 commandments aren't universal in their application. Even mine's not perfect for all situations like copywrite laws, which're really hard to write since they're often relating to concepts and thoughts, and other abstract things being 'stolen'.
So really, I guess there's no such thing as liberty. Though that's a bit overrated anyways, as is freedom. Noone's truly free as long as they're in a group; the form of control just changes to something less obvious at most, but it'll always be there.
"This is the idea that murder is murder in all cultures, that universal Law was given to mankind. There are many more examples if you choose to look."
There's a tiny problem with that... murder ISN'T murder in all cultures. It's *NOT* a universal law, and it wasn't "given" to mankind.
There's plenty of "universal" examples, but none of them are truly universal.
For example, killing someone in self defence is technically illegal according to "thou shalt not kill". There isn't room for negotiation. There isn't room to defend yeur nation, yeur friends, yeur lover, to fight for freedom, to kill for abstract notions or solid concrete things, there's no permission of wars *EVER*.
And yet we've had holy wars, Bush claimed he was on God's side for his war(s), and the terrorists claim God's on their side for their side of the war.
And yet, "Thou shalt not kill".
Hrm... this doesn't even take into account cultures that revel in warfare or fighting, such as the Aztecs I believe it was that had the thing about how they treated a strong opponent they beat in combat like a king for a few days until they killed him and cannibalized the remains as it made them 'stronger', yet it also honoured the foe for being a worthy adversary.
That would be deemed murder by our laws, and by the laws of god, yet in their culture it was not. I could be wrong abouti t being the aztecs too, it was one of the tribes in the area, but there were about a half dozen of them with similar names and it's hard to keep track of which did whot.
Anyways, these quotes all are based upon a single minded view that there is an "absolute" value which all must believe and adhere to. But there isn't. Every single one of the quotes that were given believe strongly that there is a single "right" in the world and that there is no exceptions to that.
As we know very well this isn't the case, the argument is invalid.
Jimro:
Where exactly in the Bible does it say it's okay to invade a country based on false evidence? There might be a verse or chapter that says that's okay, but I've never heard of it before, and I did go to a church school in my first 6 years of education. If there is any such chapter though it seriously conflicts with the constant messages of peace I seem to recall in my primary school assemblies. If God wants peace then Bush and anyone else who claims God is on their side in any war is either lying or deluded.
If all rights are based on the 'divine law of God' (self-flattery if ever I heard it), then how do you justify the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay? Bush denies them human rights that you have elsewhere claimed to be 'intrinsic and inalienable'. By your logic, Bush is playing god by denying these men their rights; to actually charged for something, to have a fair trial, to have a trial at all, to be treated humanely, to not be treated humiliatingly. So you detain them without charges, stuff them in cages with searchlights glaring into the eyes at all hours of the night and leave them there indefinitely, without much sign of a trial, let a lone a fair one. By your logic, Bush is defying the very 'divine law' you claim supports his every action.
With one hand, Bush claims to be fighting for freedom and human rights, with the other he detains prisoners without charge and with a complete disregard for human rights for over two years. That's hypocrisy.
And I don't like your suggestion that people without a religion to dictate right and wrong to them will believe murder, rape, and torture are perfectly justified. That's even worse than Tornadot's suggestion that people who support gay marriage would also support incestuous marriage.
It might be hard for some people to believe, but not everyone needs a book of stories over 2000 years old to teach them right and wrong. Like Kat said, most of it is just common sense.
And to claim that the Bible alone says murder is wrong is like claiming Christianity invented marriage.
So if I rape you it's ok because I say it is. But you say it's wrong because you were raped, but your view doesn't apply to me.
There are standards, morals, divine law, that apply to everybody. This is the basis for American thinking.
To dismiss someones words because they are old is foolish. Calculus is complete bunk because Newton pre-dates the constitution. The words of Lao Tzu could not possibly be applicable to people today. Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed couldn't possibly be affecting the world so long after they lived. sarcasm off.
Eye for an eye in context meant that you couldn't take MORE than an eye, to make the punishment fit the crime. Cut off the hand of a thief is not biblical, it is Arabic in origin. That's why we don't elect Muslim presidents in the US. If you want me to explain the bible to you I can snail mail you some programs that might help.
You seem to equate old with bad, and unproven with good.
Newer isn't always better.
Jimro
There is a difference between civilian prisoner and a prisoner of war.
Unless there is a prisoner exchange, POW's stay POW's until the fight is over, which it aint.
What human rights are being abused? They have food, shelter, medical treatment, a muslim chaplain. By the standards of POW treatment set forth in the Geneva convention they are not being denied human rights.
Jimro
Quote:
There are standards, morals, divine law, that apply to everybody. This is the basis for American thinking.
I know I'm talking to a brick wall when I say this but I'm going to say it anyway. America is not the be-all and end-all, uttermost pinnacle of human civilisation. America is not a monopoly on truth and justice. Believe it or not, America is NOT perfect. In fact, it's a long way from perfection. Just because Americans are educated to think the way you claim they are does not make it right.
Quote:
Cut off the hand of a thief is not biblical, it is Arabic in origin.
Ah, so that explains why it was done to thieves in 19th century Britain, doesn't it? It may not be in the Bible, but it certainly happened in countries that claimed to have the same divine routes to its laws as America.
Oh yeah, by the way, Christians and Muslims actually worship the same god. They just do it differently. Both religions are later develops of Judaism. So in effect, you claim that American law comes from the exact same source as the Taliban claimed their law came from.
Think about that.
Psalms 10:12-18
Jimro
"The historical examples you've provided have all been proven wrong by history. Hate (KKK), Lust for power (Romans, Nazi's), etc."
This's true, however, it took a very long time for them to be prooven, and in the past, people used those views as "right". It took hundreds of years for them to be prooven wrong.
Just because something hasn't been prooven wrong yet doesn't mean it's right. In most cases it just means noone's tried yet.
"The historical examples I provided haven't."
Actually they have been.
"The Bible specifically teaches against the examples you provided. The Bible has not been disproven. Debated, studied, and speculated about, but never disproven."
Also false. There have been instances where parts of the bible have been found to be false, and there have been parts where it's been prooven to be very likely true, or at least have evidence to support it.
The Bible is *NOT* an absolute judgement book. It's an account of history, a storybook, a book of mortal stories, and many other things. Some parts of it are purely fictional and are merely there to proove a point, others base a story around something that actually happened. It's been surmised that the plagues of egypt were in fact very likely to have happened, that the red sea *COULD* have parted, and that babylon likely existed.
Does this mean that obviousally 100% of the bible is true? Of course not. There's alot of parts in it that were written by very biased individuals, and alot of its' been edited out over the centuries.
Never trust the bible to be solid truth; it's true to an extent, but it must be taken with a grain of salt.
The biggest problem with disprooving the bible though is that it's 3000 years old or so. It becomes rather difficult to disproove anything in it when it's the only record of the time period in many cases. Yeu can get supporting evidence for some things, like finding canals or studies of how much sustained wind force would be needed to part a sea, and those can make it likely something happened, but to actually disproove something so old is virtually impossible, since even if yeu find scripts saying the exact opposite, then it's just a "he says, she says" thing.
"If it is ok for everyone to make their own morality then we cannot have laws."
Of course this's true. There must be a point where it's said that "in a group of 2000 people, if 1900 of them believe a certain thing, then we should make it law". In a group, there must be laws for order. For order there must be allowances on whot's "best for the majority". This doesn't mean that we should let chaos rule, because there *IS* no way for a culture of that to work.
However, this doesn't mean there's an ultimate form which everyone must adhere to either. There are no global laws for a reason; each culture is different, and whot's good for the majority of one group isn't neccecarily true for the majority of another.
"I say that murder is a good thing, and who are you to force your view on me that it isn't?"
And therein is the thing of not forcing yeur views on others. For yeu to actually act out yeur view on murder, then yeu are infringing upon someone else's view that it ISN'T. Therefore, if yeu want to murder someone, yeu have to break the thing yeu're trying to argue in yeur favor before yeu can make that argument.
However, if both were agreeing to it, like say a duel to the death, then it wouldn't be wrong now would it? I couldn't force my view on yeu then that yeu murdered someone because both involved agreed it wasn't.
However, if yeu were to kill someone who wasn't consenting, then yeu have broken the law first and can't use it to defend yeurself.
"How about rape being ok? Nobody died, no harm no foul right? It's ok to take what you want because I say so."
Once again, yeu've managed to fail to understand the concept.
To rape someone is to force yeur view upon them FIRST. Their view of not having it happen to them overrides yeurs because yeu have to force yeur view first for it to happen.
As such, once again, yeu've broken the single law of not forcing yeur views on someone else, and therefore can't use that in yeur defence.
"Morality and legality are two different yet intertwined subjects. The morality set forth in the Bible has stood the test of time."
Actually it hasn't in most cases. There's alot of parts in it that are still disputed such as the things like gay rights and the treatment of blacks. According to the bible, gays are evil in god's sight, and shouldn't be tollerated, yet Jesus preached tollerance.
The *TRUE* morality of the bible is to basically "be nice to others and don't hurt anyone, even if they hurt yeu first". There's parts in it which deviate from that message time and again, but overall, it tends to come back to that point. The bible's got about 50 different morality messages, all pointing different directions. If yeu stick to the core commandments though it's fairly descent however. But it *HASN'T* stood the test of time because it's been rewritten so many times and so much of the text perverted, and some things simply don't apply anymore.
"I have no intention of forcing my views on you, but why are you trying to force your views on Bush?"
Though yeu have been trying anyways, but the thing is that Bush is in a position of power. His decisions affect the lives of millions of people. Currently, his views haven't been helping the majority. Therefore, by yeur own reasoning, there must be a line drawn, and that line isn't where he's standing.
The laws must be made for the good of the majority, not the minority, though the minority should be protected as well if at all possible.
This isn't the case as it currently is, Bush has forced his views upon many people, including death for some. Is that right? No, it's not.
"He has the responsibility to base his decisions on a historically successful moral structure instead of what he thinks is right in his own eyes."
Except he *HASN'T* been doing that. He *HAS* been basing it on whot he feels is rigth in his own eyes, which's the whole problem in the first place.
Whot's been used in the past isn't very successful either is another problem. There hasn't been a truly "good" government yet. One of the biggest things bush should definately change is the whole way voting works, rather than as it currently is with the state votes.
If he weren't scared of loosing by doing that, he'd probably do it too, but those in power don't like to give up the things that keep them in power, and they're the only ones that can change it.
Rather annoying cycle it is, really.
Rather than just going by whot he thinks is right, or whot's worked moderately well in the past, he should be looking for alternatives and trying to make things *BETTER* than the past, but not based solely upon his own judgements.
This isn't occuring, for instead he's not learning from past mistakes, and he's making new ones by going about changing the wrong way.
"Leaders who based their decisions on their own morality include Stalin and Hitler."
And Bush.
Which's our problem, though at least he's scared to loose power because he's in a partial democracy. If he had the power of a dictatorship, he'd be about as bad as the two mentioned. He's worried about votes so is playing it very safely. If he wins the next election, he'll have much less incentive to be careful.
Honestly, I don't trust Kerry any more than Bush. Both are bad decisions. I hate the idea of the states only having 2 candidates from the 2 big parties and noone else stands a chance.
But that's how it goes. "Democracy" is flawed in general, as are all current concepts for governments, but the USA isn't even a democracy, it's pseudo-democracy at best. Canada's is a pseudo-dictatorship though so I guess that's worse in theory, but then again, Canada doesn't cause international disputes nearly as often either, so it evens out somewheres I guess.
Really, they should just break the countries down in size since trying to control that many people at once really isn't possible. So many have tried and failed, and even if democracy kind of is tollerable, it's still pretty heavily flawed.
Actually Muslims and Christians DON'T worship the same God.
Allah is a moon diety, the "Satanic Verses" of the Koran deal with his daughters who were starts.
Why do you think the Crescent moon is still the symbol of Islam?
Jimro
No offence, but a former RE (religious ecucation) teacher of mine, Mrs. P. Hall, whom I believe to be a higher authority on the matter of religion than you, begs to differ.
Allah is the Islamic name for the 'one true god'. As a religion that developed from Judaism, the same source as Christianity, it is logical that you can't just change your 'one true god'.
But I don't blame you for trying to distance American law from the Taliban's law. Unfortunately, if you insist on claiming that your laws are based on a divine law, then you cannot deny the similarity, even if Allah and your God are not one and the same, which they are.
Kats,
You say the bible is partially false, yet you offer no examples. I've been through most of the attacks on the authenticity of the bible (the geometry of the bronze laver, etc) and they all fail to disprove anything.
The bible is 66 books by over 40 different authors, written in at least two languages originally. How can heptatic structure (multiples of 7 of the same word) cross both the old and new testaments? When you look at how complex the bible really is, the odds of it being by accident are so small there aren't enough seconds in the supposed 6 billion years of the universe with which to compare it.
You can attack the authenticity of the bible, and you will fail. You can attack the faith of Jews and Christians, and it won't matter a lick. You can study all of the philosophy of secular Germany and not be any wiser than someone who just reads the Bible.
Jimro
The same goes for atheism, or any belief system then. If it's wrong to flipantly dismiss the Bible then it's equally wrong to flipantly dismiss the Quoran or any other holy book from any other religion. The Quoran in fact contains references to events in the Bible and characters such as Abraham and even Jesus, although in Islam Jesus is merely veiwed as one of the many prophets, the last and most important being Muhamad.
Now... didn't I ask you ever so nicely a few pages back to NOT turn this topic into another "holier than thou" contest?
Yet again, this topic has been steered into a pointless debate about religion and its place in society and you've seized the opportunity to tell us all again how much better your beliefs are than anyone else's.
I'd reply in kind, but I respect your choice to follow the Christian faith.
I hate to say it but your RE teacher is wrong. If Mohammed truly prophesied about Yaweh then the Jews would not have dismissed his claims. Study the beginnings of Islam and you'll find out for yourself.
Jimro
When you mention someone who questions the authenticity of the Bible, do you mean someone who questions the existence of God?
I'd say that's a logical assumption, Cycle. Considering that if you do question the existence of God you must be, in turn, questioning the authenticity of the Bible or any other holy book.
I question both. To me, the Bible has no more monopoly on truth than, oh say, The Silmarillion.
But tell me, what has the validity (or lack thereof) of the Bible have to with who the next American president is?
Why has this turned into another spiritual pissing contest?
Choosing between Republicans...McCain would have been a nicer choice...except he is sort of a hawk...or Tancredo 
I must admit I was somewhat startled when White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card made the comment to reporters that George W. Bush "sees America as we think of a 10-year-old child." The Kerry campaign was right to quickly condemn this characterization as "condescending," with spokesman Phil Singer following it up by saying that "any parent that ran a household the way that George W. Bush runs the country would find themselves in bankruptcy court on the way to family court."
If Andrew Card is to be believed, and Bush is really going to take on the role as the "Father of the Country," then I figured I'd better find out what was in store for the newly-christened "Children of the Country." And what better way to find that out then by looking at what Bush has done for those in the United States who already were children before this recent declaration.
As I'm sure Bush knows as well as anyone, the United States is first in Gross Domestic Product; first in the number of millionaires and billionaires; first in health technology; first in military technology; first in military exports; and first in defense expenditures.
But according to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the US is also 14th in their efforts to lift children out of poverty. They're 16th in low birth-weight rates; 18th in the percentage of children in poverty; 18th in the percentage of 15 year olds falling below international education benchmarks; 23rd in infant mortality; and dead last in protecting their children against gun violence.
With all of those depressing statistics, you'd think Bush would be working extra hard to make sure that he would fulfill his campaign promises so that there would be "No Child Left Behind." Unfortunately for George, but most unfortunately for young Americans, the Bush Administration has systematically left millions of children behind through their uneven and flat out uncaring policies (or lack thereof).
The most recent example of children suffering under this administration comes straight from the United States Census Bureau, who just last month reported that 700,000 additional children fell into poverty in 2003. This is on top of the 546,000 children who joined the poverty ranks in Bush's first two years in office. Ninety percent of those 546,000 were either black or Latino.
This brings the total number of poverty-stricken children in America, the richest country the world has ever seen, to a staggering 12.8 million, equivalent to more than half the population of Australia. Those numbers alone are enough to make anyone angry, but they are merely the beginning of the long list of Bush's attacks on the United States' future.
In his 2005 budget, Mr. Bush proposed a funding freeze for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. This grant gives federal dollars to states in order to provide for child care assistance. But as a result of this freeze, White House analysts predict that by 2009, the number of children receiving assistance will drop by 200,000. A study by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities shows that number to be closer to 365,000. This is all in addition to the approximately 100,000 children who lost coverage in 2003, and the estimated 550,000 children who remain on waiting lists across the US.
As if that weren't enough, the 2005 budget also froze funding for Head Start, and called for a shift from federal to state programs, which have been shown to have less accountability and lower quality standards. The budget also freezes enrollment, a move that prevents 40 percent of those eligible for Head Start and 97 percent of those eligible for Early Head Start from ever enrolling.
In the words of Bush himself, "Is our children learning?" With continued cuts like these, many will never have a chance. It also goes without saying that without child care assistance or Head Start, many children will be forced to be left home alone while their parents are at work.
Even children still in the womb aren't safe from the Bush Administration. For a president who never fails to remind us of his commitment to protecting the unborn, Bush still has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting those same unborn children.
Said record comes in the form of the EPA removing mercury emissions from environmental regulations, most notably the Clean Air Act. This is in spite of the fact that in December of 2000, the EPA concluded that -- surprise surprise -- mercury emissions are a public health menace. Studies have shown that these same mercury emissions that Bush wants to allow can cause significant developmental effects on fetuses.
And even if that fetus does survive poisoning by mercury, they still have a whole new environmental problem to worry about: dirty air. Because of Bush forcing the EPA to relax the standards for factories that dump chemicals into our atmosphere, a study of just 51 power plants subjected to review found that the toxins put out by these plants caused the premature deaths of 5,500 to 9,000 people each year. These 51 plants are also responsible for as many as 170,000 asthma attacks annually. Children and the elderly are disproportionately affected as a result of their weaker immune systems.
I'd like to take a minute to congratulate those who have the stomach or the willpower to have gotten this far without lashing out in anger and throwing their computer out a window. I wish that I didn't have to write any of this, but it especially saddens me to say that I am not finished. It gets worse.
Enter HR 4359, the Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act. While many people support increasing the child tax credit (myself included), one quick glance at the numbers shows that this is nothing more than another example of stealing from the taxpayer to line the pockets of the wealthiest of Americans.
According to Children's Defense Fund President and Founder Marian Wright Edelman, "under this misguided bill, a family with a parent who works full time at minimum wage would not be able to get a dime of the child tax credit, while a wealthy family making $250,000 a year would receive a giveaway of thousands of dollars."
She's not making this up. HR 4359 dramatically increased the income limits that determine eligibility for the child tax credit. Under this bill, the income limit for married couples who could receive the full $1,000 credit was raised by $140,000 (up from $110,000). Even families who earn as much as $309,000 would be able to obtain a partial credit.
Similar to the rest of the Bush tax cuts, low income families receive little to no credit. This is all on top of the fact that this is a $65 billion tax cut that is not paid for, thus increasing the United States' deficit (which will reach a record four hundred and twenty-two billion dollars this year) and increasing the burden on future generations of Americans.
Finally, the most obvious and highly visible of Bush's attack on children comes in the form of his highly touted, ironically named "No Child Left Behind Act." For those who've been living under a rock the past three and a half years, the NCLB Act calls for tougher standards and more accountability in public schools.
While the idea behind the bill is not entirely a bad thing, Bush seems to have forgotten to fully fund the program, leaving a $33.2 billion hole, the brunt of which affects Title I programs for low income children, funding for which fell short by $22.4 billion. Bush even proposed cutting $200 million in educational assistance to children in the military, despite promising to increase funding by $310 million.
In a speech in New Mexico in January of 2004, Bush stated that he's "incredibly optimistic about our nation's future." And I suppose that if you're rich, white, straight, and Republican, you have every reason to be optimistic right along with him.
But if you're a child who was born into poverty with birth defects thanks to mercury emissions, contracted asthma due to dirty air, sat at home unsupervised because your parents were unable to enroll you in Head Start or any sort of child care program, and then attended a school with a crumbling foundation, outdated textbooks, and supplies purchased out of your underpaid nervous wreck of a teacher's pocket, then the only thing George Bush has given you to be optimistic about is a future saddled with debt.
Americans, George Bush is wrong on the environment, wrong on child care, wrong on education, and wrong on your future. He recently said that he was very optimistic about his chances in the upcoming election. On November 2nd, I urge you to prove him wrong for the last time.
Quote:
On November 2nd, I urge you to prove him wrong for the last time.
Agreed, I can't believe someone would treat children like this. It sickens me that people follow him without taking note of the amount of damage he's causing to their own homes. It really sickens that he can do this and still smile to a camera. Nothing can justify what he's done.
I've said it before and I'l say it again; you can't make tax cuts and raise funding. It's impossible. And with America's debt rising (amazing since they lent so much money to third world countries at a massive interest rate, but that's in the past now and pretty much irremidial) it's even more impossible.
You can make laws that call for higher standards, you can make schools that don't meet these standards pay more taxes, but there's only so far you can stretch a budget before it snaps, and if all of Bush's promises come into effect, that's what will happen.
I never thought I'd say it, but America is running out of money. Whoever comes into power will have one helluva job even stabilising the economy. Terrorism in America (and after all, isn't that the only terrorism that matters) is becoming less and less of a threat as terrorists realise that they'd better stay at home and fight the American army.
I don't think it's so much the plight of the children that sickens me (though it does) as is the knowledge that the gap between rich and poor is rapidly becoming wider.
UK kids, remember the Magna Carta? It made Britain richer, but most of the common people were poorer. And enclosure did the same thing. They gave power to the people - but they were the rich people. This is what's happening now in America.
In the UK, we might not be as rich, but even the most disadvantaged are usually only disadvantaged because of their own choices - smoking, drinking, poor management of self-budget and so on. They're not disadvantaged because of something the government did. And if they are, it's a vastly smaller proportion of the population.
Okay, so there's a housing problem and the prices are soaring. But that's partly because there's quite a lot of stupid people buying second homes.
Don't mention interest rates. I don't understand them.
Quote:
In the UK, we might not be as rich, but even the most disadvantaged are usually only disadvantaged because of their own choices - smoking, drinking, poor management of self-budget and so on. They're not disadvantaged because of something the government did. And if they are, it's a vastly smaller proportion of the population.
Well, there is the mining community that the Tories destroyed throughout the 80's, finishing off thousands of people's jobs and leaving them redundant because, for the most part, they'd been down the pits their whole working lives and didn't have any skills elsewhere.
But apart from that, I think lay offs in primary and secondary businesses today are mostly the result of raw materials and manufactured items being imported to cut costs, not necessarily government action. So yeah, I'd have to agree with you there, Harley (apart from Margaret Thatcher's infamous pit closures of course).
Bush has America's economy in a rut. He couldn't afford to invade Iraq, but he did it anyway. As Harley said, America's running out of money. The only way for Bush to keep his promises (ha!) would be to raise taxes. But the only promises I trust Bush to keep are when he says he's going to go to war with someone.
It's all very well having loads of policies and programmes, but you need to invest money to get them off the ground. The American economy doesn't have that money.
It really is a shame that most of the people reading this will not yet be of voting age.
I was driving along in my parents' new Diesel Jetta through a depressed industrial American town by the name of Point Roberts, WA one evening a couple weeks ago, and I noticed a group of billboards that had recently gone up. They all featured men smiling or laughing as women or children embraced them. Usually the pictures were posed so that it looked like the man's body was physically supporting the woman or child whose arms were twined about him.
The slogan in big letters across the top read "Strength, Not Violence." At the bottom was the name of the organization that was running this campaign against domestic violence, and a number to call.
Well, I thought, even though this campaign is still using this image of a clinging dependent as the foundation of this implied reader's masculinity, this strength not violence thing is a good idea, and let's hope to God it helps. And then, about ten seconds later, I started thinking about the past four years; and then I thought, good Christ, what are the odds?
Since September 11th, everything the Bush administration has done, and most of what the American news and entertainment media have produced, has been hammering home the message that strength and violence are the same thing. According to the Bush administration's foreign policy, the only way to deal with a potential threat is to hit them before they hit you.
Their line is that the only way to be strong is to strike first, strike hard, and strike alone. Asking for help, pausing to consider the consequences, searching for alternatives - all of these things are weak. As the months go by, their definition of "strength" becomes narrower, and their definition of "weakness" becomes broader.
It is now, apparently, weakness to change your mind about anything, ever, even if your initial decision was clearly wrong. And, as Arnold Schwarzenegger told us all last week, it is now a sign of weakness even to acknowledge the existence of a serious - and glaringly obvious - problem. Apparently, anyone who is at all concerned about the fact that the American economy is in the toilet is now a "girlie man."
Well, Arnold would know. He presided over a phase of American popular culture that reduced "strength" to its crudest form: musclepower and firepower fused in the same male body. Thanks to him and Sylvester Stallone, on any given summer we can now enjoy any number of movies featuring a rock-hard, steroid-inflated, supernaturally indestructible hero who uses his gigantic limbs and/or a small portable arsenal to lay waste to as many people as he can reach while saying almost nothing.
I suppose it says something about the United States that he is now being talked about as a potential Presidential candidate, even though it would require a Constitutional amendment to make him eligible. Because apparently, in the Republicans' world, the only tool a strong leader should ever need is a big ol' can of whup-ass.
I am not such an idealist that I would deny whup-ass a place in the political realm. I look forward to laying down a little of my own whup-ass in this here forum. My definition of 'whup-ass,' however, is a little different. It is not, in my world, the exclusive province of heterosexual men, girlie or otherwise. And it is not necessarily linked to your ability to beat the stuffing out of people, or to the number of guns you own.
It has more to do with being able to detect and destroy the bullsh-t being industriously shoveled over the problems nobody wants us to know about, being willing to confront the reality underneath no matter how frightening or disturbing it may be, and being willing to tell the truth even if nobody is going to believe you.
From my perspective, the candidate with the most whup-ass would be the candidate who can actually save the trainwreck economy, end the war on terrorism, and learn from his mistakes so as not to make them again. And from my perspective, what you need in order to accomplish those things is not so much pectoral muscles and automatic weapons as intelligence, integrity, honesty, and courage.
None of those attributes are part of the conception of "strength" being promoted by the Bush campaign and the Republican party in general. The idea that a strong president should be mentally sharp went out the window sometime during Ronald Reagan's second term, and now ignorance is a strength instead of a weakness.
"Integrity," under the Bush administration, has been redefined as "resolve," which appears to mean "refusing to ever admit that you made a mistake or to try alternative approaches once it's clear that the one you're currently using is a total f--king disaster."
Honesty was the Bush Administration's first casualty; and without honesty, "courage" now seems to consist mainly in starting wars that nobody knows how to end and then boldly sending the children of other people off to fight them.
As for compassion, empathy, sensitivity, and all the rest of that bullsh-t, well, nobody needs that but women and girlie men.
It's obvious to me, anyway, that this conception of "strength" is, tragically, dangerously limited. The western world does need compassion, empathy, and sensitivity, because without them we will never learn enough about the world we're now at war with to figure out how to stop fighting it.
Instead of bleeding our Bills and Charters of Rights and/or Freedoms dry in the hopes of achieving perfect invulnerability, we need governments that can face up to the fact that vulnerability is the price of freedom, and acknowledge, as Clinton did in his convention speech, that we cannot defeat terrorism by trying to "jail, kill, or occupy" all of our potential enemies. We need people who are not in love with war, who can imagine their own strength, and the western world's strength, and America's strength, coming from something other than violence.
We need this more than ever now because the world needs a solution to the problem of terrorism, and confusing strength with violence makes it impossible for us to find one. Karl Rove demonstrated this beautifully last week by making a breathakingly ignorant comparison between America's 'war on terrorism' and the British approach to the conflict in Northern Ireland:
"This is going to be more like the conflict in Northern Ireland, where the Brits fought terrorism, and there's no sort of peace accord with al-Qaeda saying, 'We surrender.'"
There's a lot that's weird about this statement, but the truly astonishing thing is that it shows that Rove not only has no idea what's happened in Ireland during the past 25 years, but also doesn't have a single f--king clue about how to actually win a war on terrorism.
Rove, apparently, stopped following the news sometime in 1981, when Maggie Thatcher was still refusing to negotiate with the IRA hunger strikers, preferring to let ten of them starve to death and then quietly give them most of the concessions they were striking for a few days after the strike was finally called off. Apparently Rove never got to the part where it was revealed that even while Thatcher's government was maintaining their hard-line posture in public, they were also looking for ways to negotiate with Sinn Fein (and, by extension, the IRA).
In 1993, evidently, Rove was too busy slithering through the swamps looking for something he could slime Clinton with to notice that John Major's government had invited Sinn Fein and the IRA to negotiate, provided they would agree to a cease-fire. Eight months later, the IRA took them up on it, and over the next five years, with the help of President Clinton and the Mitchell commission, the various parties managed to work out the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 - which is, guess what, a peace accord. Rove, meanwhile, was busy chortling over the Whitewater and Lewinsky investigations, and no doubt missed the whole thing.
The power-sharing agreement currently in place does not satisfy extremists on either the republican or the unionist side, but enough people now have enough of what they wanted, and the community support these extremists had been drawing on before the agreement is drying up. Sectarian and political violence is still a reality in Northern Ireland and probably will be for a long time; but it will probably never return to the levels of the 1970s and 1980s. The message of the Good Friday Agreement is not so much "We surrender" as "Everybody wins."
In Rove's fantasy world, none of that happened. Maggie and her successors held the hard line for 30 years, there were no negotiations, nobody ever showed any sensitivity or grasped any nuances, Clinton was never President, and now somehow through the magic of whup-ass, everything's fine.
In fact, Northern Ireland is the worst example Rove could possibly have chosen, because what it really shows us is that Arnold's kind of whup-ass does not solve problems. Unfortunately, at least in America, it does win elections.
The Kerry campaign is getting plenty of advice these days, and they clearly don't need mine. But looking back on it, it strikes me that Clinton's success in 1992 depended in large part on his ability to project an alternative version of masculinity that was as powerful and as attractive as the Republican version that had been used to beat Dukakis into the ground four years earlier. Part of Clinton's magic was that he convinced American men that you could feel everyone's pain and still kick ass.
Kerry's personality appears to be pretty different from Clinton's, and the same approach won't necessarily work for him. But since we are apparently stuck, at least for this election, with the politics of whup-ass, what we need to do is redefine what it means to kick ass and take names, so that Kerry's not stuck making a choice between either adopting the Republican agenda wholesale or becoming a girlie man.
I'm convinced that the key to it all is honesty. Bush has managed to conceal enormous personal defects and compensate for gigantic political blunders by pretending that they all spring from his simple, homespun, plain-spoken, straight-shootin', regular-guy authentic self. Bush's "authentic" guyness is, however, as constructed and cartoonish as Arnold Schwarzenegger's physique; it's a pure illusion spun from media fabrications, and is already beginning to unravel.
If Kerry can project his real self, he will also be projecting his own version of what it means to be a man; and one can only expect that it will be a lot healthier and more convincing than the crap the Republicans have been selling. Because the beating that Bush's policies have taken - and that America has taken along with them - over the past few years proves one thing beyond a doubt, and it is that the truth can kick a lie's ass any day.
terrorist strive only when there is anarchy and fundamentalism, such as the onces in countries sudan, algeria, agfhanistan, indonesia, palestine etc. these countries usually have fundamentalists as leaders or civil wars.
where terrorists don't strive are under government that are unreligious and totalitarian such as china, cuba, north korea, russia and the former ussr, saddam's iraq etc
in the later group all you need to do as a citizen to survive is to remain quiet and do your work. in the former you have to fight for survival to live, you have to join a group, terrorist try to make you join theirs by trying to make you sympathize with them.
iraq was ruled by a dictator, saddam, and he posed no significant to threat to america and no threat at all to the mainland, saddam wasn't trying to lose control of iraq nor his wealth and he enjoyed a lavish lifestyle, and he was never a devout muslim.
osama on the other hand is from a wealthy family but he left his aristocratic lifestyle behind to become a devout fundamentalist muslim, embracing an extreme lifestyle and ready to die for his psychopathic cause.
the bush administration and bush supporters have always blamed the clinton administration for not securing america enough against osama. well when bush became president, what aganda did he have to defeat osama? capture iraq and give oil contracts to his (bush) buddies. or what did the republican controlled congress do after everyone of the attacks of u.s. embassies in africa and the u.s.s. cole, they mocked clinton's response as an attempt to divert attention from the issue that was more serious to them, monica lewinsky.
after 9-11, bush attacked agfhanistan and the world supported him and after the attack he walked away from the next step, an american assisted rebuilding of agfhanistan with loans from the world bank and donations from countries worldwide. a move that would have the defeated the purpose of terrorists in that country, instead he prematurely returned it to the agfhans and al queda has been allowed to regroup and orchestrate attacks.
bush went to iraq and opened a can of worms, the majority group, the shiites supported by iran an american enemy, want an independent republic, the kurds want to merge with turkey, and the former ruling group, the sunnis, a minority group want to retain power. a break up will defeat the purpose of bush there, america has spent $200b, lost more than a thousand soldiers trying to remove one man from power, california makes more money for america than any other state and new york city makes more money for america than any other city. iraq is smaller than california, most of iraq is wasteland because it is a large desert with a few oasis, it is sparsely populated, before the war, the population of iraq was approximately 24m a figure than might have been inflated by saddam. the population of california is 34.5m, and yet california's budget was about $100b some of this money was borrowed, the state contributed and a fraction came from the federal government meaning that it might take up to ten year for the bush administration to give california the same amount of money that they have given and spent in iraq since last year, $200b.
one more thing, in all this mess haliburton made tons of money, at first, they were using taxpayers money to buy oil at a much higher rate than it was in america from kuwaiti business allies, and sold in iraq at rates less than a quarter of the value in america, they stopped as soon as it became public. now they are being probed for about how they spent $2b that they cannot account for.
what a corrupt administration.
Quote:
I've said it before and I'l say it again; you can't make tax cuts and raise funding. It's impossible.
I know and what disturbs me is that so many people in this country seemingly don't understand that simple fact. If the country is going to fight a "War on Terror" that causes the U.S. to be invading countries (and whatever else), then the tax cuts must go. Personally, I think it should go across the board, but too many people seem to think they can have it all and don't understand.
To suggest that the war in Iraq is anything like the peace talks in Northern Ireland suggests a level of ignorance beating its way into idiocy.
Sinn Fein is associated with the IRA, but it's really full of the people who were too extreme to agree even with the IRA. The IRA wanted, in the long run, for NI to be seperate from the UK. Sinn Fein wanted to kill every British person, and every person supporting Britain.
Britain didn't invade Northern Ireland in order to defeat the terrorists. We talked. It took a long time to get there, but we never went to such extremes as going to war with a country in order to stop its terrorists.
Bush has invaded Iraq, there's no other way to put it. He has gone to war with a country in order to stamp out terrorism, which, if you haven't noticed, is a world-wide thing, and he's dragged the UK into his stupid dispute.
Bush seems to think that the best way to clean a window is by throwing bricks at it.
Just got back from weekend drill.
Did a little informal polling. Over 90% of the soldiers I talked with support Bush.
I thought that this was kinda weird from all the criticizem that I have heard about the Bush administration on this forum.
So I started asking for the reasoning behind the decision. Economics and military policy were the two most common factors. When soldiers vote, we are voting for who will be our next boss. The soldiers I talked to didn't want Kerry to be their commander in chief.
The soldiers polled were all reservists ranging from mechanics to nurse practitioners.
If a tax cut stimulates the economy so that there is more money to be taxed then tax revenue stays the same and the economy grows. Rush Limbaugh's stance.
This reminds me of the Carter/Reagan years. Terrible economy, record setting gas prices, huge deficit, lots of military spending. Came out of it ok didn't we?
Dukakis was a democrat from massachusetts. Lost the election in 88.
Just finished my voter registration yesterday. Chalk another vote for Bush.
Jimro
I thought the Carter years were pretty bad...from the general opinion...can't dispute Reagan though...great man...him and Thatcher...
Quote:
If a tax cut stimulates the economy so that there is more money to be taxed then tax revenue stays the same and the economy grows. Rush Limbaugh's stance.
Reminds me of the Regan era and look at his legacy an ecomony in the crapper and an astronomical deficit.
Quote:
This reminds me of the Carter/Reagan years. Terrible economy, record setting gas prices, huge deficit, lots of military spending. Came out of it ok didn't we?
Unless you forgot Jimro petroleum is a limited resource and the Carter/Reagan era was 25 years ago. Think about how much gasoline was burned since then a lot and there is a good chance prices will continue the rise.
Quote:
Did a little informal polling. Over 90% of the soldiers I talked with support Bush.
Except I thought that soldier members can't bad-mouth their current government unless they'd like the sack.
At least, that's how I thought I heard it...
Can't bad mouth to the media, but to a fellow soldier we can B!t@& all we want. Freedom of speech exists as long as you are not quoted 
Jimro
vladimir putin, the russian president is probably thanking his stars that he never agreed to join bush, like tony blair did in the invasion of iraq, or the recent massacre in russia would have been blame on him for leaving chechnya, a next door neighbor for iraq that posed no threat to russia or any country in europe, africa, australasia, south america, canada, mexico, the carribean and the pacific islands and even mainland united states, expect for the america's military force in the middle east (that are legitimately station there to spy on saddam's military), kuwait, israel, saudi arabia and iran.
however if bush had intensified his war to capture osama and the taliban the terrorist wouldn't have had the time to execute the air plane attacks and a proposed attack on al queda cells in chechnya that was abandon because of the iraq war may have disbanded terrorist there and prevented this ugly incidents.
You know what I hate? I hate how whenever I plan, draft, and write a 1500-word post in a debate, the only response I get is "what he said". It's only when I rattle off a hasty reply when I get any kind of response from the opposition.
Anyways. When George W. Bush was elected in 2000, I knew for sure that bad things were on the horizon. But if you'd told me that by the end of his first term 3000 civilians would die on American soil and 1000 American soldiers would die in Iraq, even I wouldn't have believed you. Last week marked the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which, despite his failure to do anything after receiving a memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in United States," are somehow a centerpiece of Bush's current election campaign. Meanwhile, after misleading the US into believing that Iraq was culpable in the terrorist attacks, and despite all evidence to the contrary, Team Bush is still conjuring up the spectres of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in the same sentence while on the campaign trail. As we all know, Bush ignored bin Laden and instead went gung-ho into Iraq - and last week also marked the death of the thousandth American soldier in that misbegotten campaign. So, to recap, Bush ignored al-Qaeda until it was too late, then ignored them again so he could conquer Iraq by falsely connecting them to al-Qaeda and lying about their military capabilities. Now Iraq is a quagmire, and as a result, American troops are dying at a mean rate of two per day over there. Yet somehow Bush has persuaded half of America that these are the very reasons for which he deserves another four years at the helm of the most powerful force on earth. Somebody please wake me up when this f--king nightmare is over.
can't dispute Reagan though...great man...him and Thatcher...
I think I'm going to be sick.
Quote:
You know what I hate? I hate how whenever I plan, draft, and write a 1500-word post in a debate, the only response I get is "what he said". It's only when I rattle off a hasty reply when I get any kind of response from the opposition.
I wouldn't get too upset with that when you see it in a certain light, Cycle, if people were ignoring you then you can get upset, but I think the points you raise tend to have so much of an effect you seem to become invincible to opposing opinions since anyone who tries to oppose your statements might look like an ignorant fool or a sadist.
As for your current statement, well I'm on your side so...I won't bother with a "what he said" sentence.
Well if you don't think that suggestion is too hot Cycle, then who is the best PM or president? (Churchill? Kennedy?)
The only people who can possibly think Margaret Thatcher was a good prime minister are either wealthy middle class conservatives or people who spent the 1980's doing an impression of an ostrich.
For the rest of the UK, you couldn't possibly miss her parliament's forced closures of the coal mining industry nationwide (despite there still being massive coal fields buried under the UK), leaving thousands of miners unemployed with miniscule redundancy payments and imminent poverty. This didn't just have a financial impact, but it also had terrible social impact. There were riots and protests and entire mining communities were divided into strikers and 'scabs' (the ones who didn't go on strike).
That alone would make me dislike Thatcher. Don't even get me started on the Tory party happily scrapping the student grant, forcing future students (like myself) to take up student loans leading to huge debts as soon as you're done at university. And Labour hasn't done much better with the tuition fees and top up fee policy. Fortunately the latter will not come into effect until 2006, so I will just escape it by a year; anyone starting uni before that will not be affected.
As for Winston Churchill, he was a great wartime prime minister. But after the Second World War ended he was utterly hopeless in office.
George W. Bush is NO Winston Churchill.
I wouldn't get too upset with that when you see it in a certain light, Cycle, if people were ignoring you then you can get upset, but I think the points you raise tend to have so much of an effect you seem to become invincible to opposing opinions since anyone who tries to oppose your statements might look like an ignorant fool or a sadist.
Meh. I'm simply expressing my annoyance that whenever I put a real effort into something, it doesn't seem to make a lick of difference. Either way, I'm flattered. In a manner of speaking.
And... heh... what Eon said.
For what it's worth Cycle I thought it was an extremely well thought out article that did somewhat resonate with my opinion of Bush. I find that the world of '1984' is coming about 20 years late with how Bush and 'Auh-nold' want to keep the public ignorant of the problems America faces with their double speak or whatever (it's been a while since I read 1984.)
Examples:
-Bush pats himself on the back because a few thousand new jobs openned up. News Flash! That barely even puts a dent in the millions that are not employed.
-Governor'Auh-nold' calls those those that are concerned about the US economy tanking 'girly men'. Cycle already pointed this out though I believe the comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek.
It all reminds me of those maxims Orwell introduced to us like "Slavery is freedom!" and "Ignorance is strength!".
The economy supports the country. Is anybody else out there waiting for the next Black Friday? (or whatever it was called)
Quote:
Economics and military policy were the two most common factors.
Economics I'll get to below. Though the few vets in my family weren't happy about the cuts to veterans aid which is why they aren't happy with Bush.
Quote:
If a tax cut stimulates the economy so that there is more money to be taxed then tax revenue stays the same and the economy grows.
That possibly works if government spending stays the same. You are ignoring the fact that government spending is increasing a lot for various reasons, in part due to security concerns by bolstering up the military and for Homeland defense.
Quote:
This reminds me of the Carter/Reagan years. Terrible economy, record setting gas prices, huge deficit, lots of military spending. Came out of it ok didn't we?
Yes, after Bush and Clinton raised taxes (the former across the board, while the latter on the rich), but not before. Economists can tell you that though the huge difference in the economic boom in the 80s versus the 90s for all people should make that clear.
The soldiers I talked with had very different points to make about the economy. Some have an excellent education and some don't.
Soldiers don't like benefit cuts to veterans, most of us are slightly irked at the Bush admin for that. However from my experience most of us don't trust Kerry's leadership abilities.
GWBush has done a fine job as CIC from a grunts perspective. Kerry called his fellow Vietnam vets war criminals, then voted against every equipment fielding and upgrade as a Senator. Kerry's record doesn't give him much credibility with servicemen.
However he does have a minority of hard core democrats in the service who will vote for him.
One soldier put it this way "I'd rather work for a Cowboy than a Lawyer."
Jimro
Well if you don't think that suggestion is too hot Cycle, then who is the best PM or president?
Having only lived through three presidents (Bush, Clinton, Bush) and three British Prime Ministers (Thatcher, Major, Blair), I can only opine in a certain manner on these six politicians. Clinton was better from my point of view than the Bushes for obvious reasons, and Blair is the best of a bad lot -- he may have done that whole Iraq thing, but he's still a saint compared John "Back to Basics" Major and Maggie "Mortal Enemy of Organized Labour" Thatcher.
Oh, and I just want to point this out.
Did a little informal polling. Over 90% of the soldiers I talked with support Bush.
All of which are soldiers that haven't been sent to Iraq to get their asses shot off by insurgents. Talk to soldiers who are actually at war and you'll probably get a noticeably different response.
One soldier put it this way "I'd rather work for a Cowboy than a Lawyer."
That's just ridiculous. Refer to my left-wing pinko comie diatribe about "whup-ass".
Clinton and his military policies=equal disaster...
Let's see, remember Waco or Somalia? Or the long war in the former USSR provinces?
Clinton and his military policies=equal disaster...
Compared to George Bush?! Don't make me laugh.
Well, neither one is capable militarily...leave it to the boys who know how to fight a war...
Bush really needs to find a way to get this economy going and fast...
Quote:
Did a little informal polling. Over 90% of the soldiers I talked with support Bush.
Do you really expect anyone with the slightest common sense to trust a poll conducted by someone who is fiercely and openly biased in favour of George W. Bush?
Statistics can be easily manipulated to say just about what ever you like. If I wanted to do, I could conduct a poll and make certain that the people I asked fiercely opposed Bush, so as to give me a nice 90% in support of Kerry.
But why bother when I could make up that statistic?
Ooooooo... Jer-ry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry!
Laugh all my like, Cycle, but all polls should be taken with a pinch of salt and any polls conducted by blatantly partisan sources should never be trusted.
