aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes To all my fellow Americans (others invited too) Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "To all my fellow Americans (others invited too)" Watch "To all my fellow Americans (others invited too)" New topic
Author

To all my fellow Americans (others invited too)

Andres Gonzalez
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 1561
With all the politic news on TV, I was wondering what you guys think about Bush's re-election.
- Do you support his re-election?
- Your reasons for support/not support
- Do you see it as inevitable?
thanks


I'm not going to be a Rock Star. I'm going to be a LEGEND! --Freddie Mercury
Dan Chisholm
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 02, 2002
Posts: 1865
George Bush is bankrupting the country. If we want to avoid bankruptcy, then we have to elect someone else. Any democrat will spend less money than Bush, because any new program proposed by a democrat will never win support in the Republican controlled congress. There is no need to fear a liberal agenda proposed by a democrat in the White House, because congress won't give that president a dime. On the other hand, a Republican controlled congress will give a Republican president anything that he asks for. That's why we have gone from a budget surplus to record budget deficits. The Bush administration and this Republican congress are an economic disaster.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:
That's why we have gone from a budget surplus to record budget deficits.
When did we have budget surpluses? All I can recall is that we had predictions that some day we would have them but then the economy went south and the World Trade Center was attacked and that was then end of that.
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Plus the fact that the years that surplusses where claimed the national debt kept going up.
Dan did bring up a good point though this congress has been free spending since about 98. The amount of pork put in bills is every bit as bad as when the Dems controlled the purse strings.
The bubble burst, the economy started to go into recession, Bush took office, 911 and yet the spending continued. There are very few Republicans that can still call themselves fiscal conservatives even less Dems.
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
Here is the data from the Congressional Budget Office:
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
Bush is demanding that graph be redrawn with a logarithmic vertical axis. Next time I see you Eugene, I'm buying you a latte.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
It seems to me that the liberals and Dems are trying to pretend that 9/11 never happened. This absurd focus on the deficit without any understanding for its cause also seems to imply that they are not particularly interested in a strong and secure nation. They are in denial.
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404

Bad Boy Clinton tops the chart. Why didn't you all stick with him ? A bit od slap and tickle in the Oval Office doesn't seem so bad now.
Bela Bardak
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 02, 2004
Posts: 179
Originally posted by HS Thomas:

Bad Boy Clinton tops the chart. Why didn't you all stick with him ? A bit od slap and tickle in the Oval Office doesn't seem so bad now.

Two term (8 years) limit, HS. Despite the slap and tickle he probably would have been re-elected in 2000 if it was possible....
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
I see Bush is willing to let the 9/11 findings report delivery slip. One could on suspect he'd like for it to be delivered after the election.
Condollezza Rice's assertion that We just had no idea anybody would use an airliner as an offensive weapon is pure denial of causal relationships.
John Ashcroft waited so very long to recuse himself in the Valarie Flame affair. Now that's he's recused himself, it's clear a independent prosecutor was needed from the beginning. This is not like whitewater where we never even knew if there was a crime. We know somebody high in the Whitehouse is a felonist.
Like father, like son - one term and he's done.
Bela Bardak
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 02, 2004
Posts: 179
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
It seems to me that the liberals and Dems are trying to pretend that 9/11 never happened. This absurd focus on the deficit without any understanding for its cause also seems to imply that they are not particularly interested in a strong and secure nation. They are in denial.

The causes of the deficit include the tax cuts and the manner in which Bush decided to respond to the 9/11 threat, Jason. Whether or not we agree with the wars (as I did) doesn't affect the deficit.
I think we have to prune back the tax cuts.
HS Thomas
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 15, 2002
Posts: 3404
Originally posted by Bela Bardak:

Two term (8 years) limit, HS. Despite the slap and tickle he probably would have been re-elected in 2000 if it was possible....

I forgot. Well the next best would have been Al Gore then. And he isn't running now either. Bush would probably be re-elected and then do what Clinton did anyway. Creative destruction.
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by Bela Bardak:

I think we have to prune back the tax cuts.

The biggest cause for deficits is not 9/11 or the Iraq war but the Medicare entitlement. It alone is going to add $524 billion to the deficit.


Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Sadanand Murthy
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 26, 2003
Posts: 382
It used to be that the dems would increase taxes and increase spending where as the repubs would cut taxes and also cut spending. But then we got Dubyaman and what did he do? He cut taxes and increased spending like there is no tomorrow. Well if the spending keeps up then there may not be a tomorrow.
Fiscally conservative republican has become an oxymoron under GWB.


Ever Existing, Ever Conscious, Ever-new Bliss
Dan Chisholm
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 02, 2002
Posts: 1865
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
It seems to me that the liberals and Dems are trying to pretend that 9/11 never happened. This absurd focus on the deficit without any understanding for its cause also seems to imply that they are not particularly interested in a strong and secure nation. They are in denial.

Isn't this a classic example of an ad hominem attack? Rather than debate the issue, it attacks the motives and character of the opponent.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
He's not going to prune back the tax cuts. He wants to backrupt the country. The rich want to get as much money out as they can while the getting is good.
They are going to starve the beast into submission.
Dan Chisholm
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 02, 2002
Posts: 1865
Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:
It used to be that the dems would increase taxes and increase spending where as the repubs would cut taxes and also cut spending. But then we got Dubyaman and what did he do? He cut taxes and increased spending like there is no tomorrow. Well if the spending keeps up then there may not be a tomorrow.
Fiscally conservative republican has become an oxymoron under GWB.

Even Rush Limbaugh has made similar comments.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:

Isn't this a classic example of an ad hominem attack? Rather than debate the issue, it attacks the motives and character of the opponent.

I'd call it a straw man attack, a focus on an opposition that isn't there.
Suggesting that any American is pretending 9/11 didn't occur is an insult to the people we lost in that attack. As a throwaway statement it borders on baiting. I find it outrageous, even for MD.


Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.
- Robert Bresson
Dmitry Melnik
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 18, 2003
Posts: 328
He wants to backrupt the country.
...unless he has no (secret) plans to rob a bank or two.
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
He's not going to prune back the tax cuts. He wants to backrupt the country. The rich want to get as much money out as they can while the getting is good.
They are going to starve the beast into submission.

Who does that money belong to? Tax cuts are letting people keep more of THEIR money. It is not taking money from the poor and giving to the rich.
Those earning over 100,000 now pay 70% of income taxes.
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

I'd call it a straw man attack, a focus on an opposition that isn't there.
Suggesting that any American is pretending 9/11 didn't occur is an insult to the people we lost in that attack. As a throwaway statement it borders on baiting. I find it outrageous, even for MD.

As long as it isn't directed at an individual it is ok. It also does not have to be true.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:
Isn't this a classic example of an ad hominem attack? Rather than debate the issue, it attacks the motives and character of the opponent.

It is debating the issue. They are making an issue out of the deficit, yet they fail to raise the reasons that we have a deficit. The reasons we have a deficit are politically inconvenient for them.
They feel it's just enough to say "look we're in a deficit" and leave it at that, without touching on the reasons that it was necessary to deficit spend. This is deplorable and shows a lack of concern regarding the single most important issue in this election season, which is national security. National security post-9/11 and the deficit are intimately linked. To pretend otherwise is insulting. If they are not willing to publicly make this obvious linkage, then it certainly shows that the security of the country might not be a prime concern for them, rather they are more interested in making those who actually had to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 look bad.
That chart above shows that since the 60's we have had a deficit for all but a couple of years. Hey we had a bubble economy during those years, no large scale military conflicts, and no national trauma. Life was good. Of course then the bubble burst, our national financial and military infrastructures are attacked to the tune of 3000 dead, and we get involved in two large scale military conflicts. Let's not forget all the jobs that were lost as a direct result of both the bubble economy and 9/11. So then we are forced to immediately spend large amounts in the areas of homeland defense, the military, anti-terrorism, and other recovery related costs. All in the space of just a couple of years. I have asked before but I'll ask again, what are the options to deficit spending given this situation? The candidates certainly haven't offered any.
The liberals and Democrats feel that the deficit is one of the few areas where Bush might be vulnerable. However, attacking the deficit is a direct attack on national security. If one is attacking national security, then it stands to reason they might feel that there is some issue in this election that is more important. What do they want, a safer more secure country *right now* without having to pay for it? How selfish, not to mention unrealistic.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Suggesting that any American is pretending 9/11 didn't occur is an insult to the people we lost in that attack. As a throwaway statement it borders on baiting. I find it outrageous, even for MD.

JM:It seems to me that the liberals and Dems are trying to pretend that 9/11 never happened.
"It seems to me"... That denotes a statement of opinion, not fact. I believe I am allowed to have those, whether or not they are shared by others.
Would you argue that national security issues, an area in which the liberals/Dems are notoriously weak in, are politically inconvenient for many of them? It seems obvious to me. Therefore, they semm to do their best to avoid issues regarding national security. That is, they would prefer to pretend that such issues don't exist because that is not an area in which they can gain ground in.
However if the outrage is just too outrageous, we can prevent further outrage, by moving this thread to the same outrageous destinantion as the others that have caused some outrage. Of course, some might be outraged by this, as outrageous as that might sound.
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
[Paul S]: As long as it isn't directed at an individual it is ok. It also does not have to be true.
Um, no. Insulting an individual who's on the ranch would be more likely to get edited or deleted, but targeting groups instead is not exactly protected behavior. "Be nice" still applies. Jason's comment wasn't too bad IMO, as it was mostly issue driven - though it would've been better IMO if it were more issue driven, like the followup just posted. I'm not too concerned about Jason's post here; I'm responding to the general characterization or our policy suggested by Paul S, which is not accurate as I see it. I'm guessing Paul S maybe feels our policies haven't been enforced consistently in the past, which is probably true in some cases. But that doesn't mean we're not trying.
[Jason]: "It seems to me"... That denotes a statement of opinion, not fact. I believe I am allowed to have those, whether or not they are shared by others.
Ummm, "it seems to me" does help here, but I wouldn't want to suggest it grants automatic immunity to whatever statement follows. "It seems to me that X is a jackass" is not too different from saying "X is a jackass", for example. "It seems to me" may blunt it a bit, but not enough - I'd rather encourage people to focus on where & why they disagree with X's statements or actions, not on X himself. Or on the group that X belongs to.


"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1390
I voted for Bush and will again because I don't trust the Democrats' judgement and values.
For an example of their bad judgement, after 9/11 both Al Gore and Bill Clinton made remarks to the effect that international terrorism is caused by the disparity of wealth between the 3rd World and the 1st World. I think that other explanations are far more likely.
Given that Marx was the one who pioneered the notion that economics is the driving force behind everything, I am suspicious of people who analyze things in terms of economics -- especially when other, more likely explanations are available. It suggests that Clinton and Gore might have been influenced to some degree by Marxist ideas.
I have concluded that most Democrats are morally and ethically twisted, based on my assumption that easy legal access to handguns at most times and places means that more people will be killed in drunken bar room brawls or in disputes between drug dealers, but also that more good people will be able to shoot muggers, carjackers, burglars and rapists. The strong opposition to liberal concealed carry laws by most Democrats tells me that Democrats care more about protecting the lives of drunken fist-fighters than they care about the right of those who behave properly not to be robbed, raped or burglarized.
As to the deficit, I note that the only spending that decreased under Clinton was military spending. Regardless how one feels about the war in Iraq, I think it's clear that military spending is very important right now. And I think that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was strategically necessary to the War on Terrorism in general, if not specifically to the war against Al Kaida.
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
As to the deficit, I note that the only spending that decreased under Clinton was military spending. Regardless how one feels about the war in Iraq, I think it's clear that military spending is very important right now. [/QB]

But Frank, if the only spending increase under GWB was related to the military then I'd agree with you. Instead he has created the biggest entitlement program in the history of USA - "Medicare". Initially estimated to cost $400 billion, it has been re-estimated to cost $524 billion. And here is the bigger pinch.. $524 billion for the next 10 years alone. In 10 years from now the baby boomers will start retiring and then watch the way government rolls into bankruptcy.
Also hidden in his "amnesty" plan for illegal immigrants is the clause that they can take home the social security they earn here. Woah!!! am I the only person who thinks this is extremely idiotic?
Dan Chisholm
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 02, 2002
Posts: 1865
Jason,
The first treasury secretary of the Bush administration did not agree with the Bush economic policy, so why should anyone else?
The 9/11 attack required the response that occurred in Afghanistan, but the overthrow of Saddam was a separate issue. Saddam's removal was motivated by a desire to realign the Middle East under the control of more moderate leadership. WMD was just a pretext. Rumsfeld claimed that Iraqi military leaders were ready to overthrow Saddam as soon as the US rolls a few tanks into Iraq to make a show of force. If the situation had been as Rumsfeld had described, the Iraqi military would have done most of the work and the US would have been able to stay out of the cities. The reason that we are spending so much money in Iraq today is because Rumsfeld and Bush did not know what they were leading us into. They were just plain wrong.
Iraq was an optional war. It was not a response to 9/11.
We have a deficit to today because Bush cut taxes and increased spending during a recession. The tax cuts did not stimulate the economy is the US. Instead, the tax cuts stimulated the economy in China and other countries from which we import consumer products.
The gridlock resulting from a republican controlled Congress and a democrat in the White House would produce far better fiscal discipline than the irresponsible behavior that has been demonstrated by an unrestrained president Bush.
In 2004, the only responsible choice is anyone but Bush.
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
However if the outrage is just too outrageous, we can prevent further outrage, by moving this thread to the same outrageous destinantion as the others that have caused some outrage. Of course, some might be outraged by this, as outrageous as that might sound.

You would like for the truth about GWB to be a closed thread. I suppose that in a political discussion, one should just expect some opinion stretching by the Republicans.
What it all comes down to is 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Bush's people at the FBI squashed the attempt by the whistle blower to apprehend or to serve a search warrant on Moussoui.
they are more interested in making those who actually had to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 look bad

Being a super recovery artist only satifies those simmple minded enough to forget Bush and his administration are at least partly to blame.
Bert Bates
author
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 14, 2002
Posts: 8883
    
    5
I guess this should be a whole new thread:
"What are the most important issues facing the US today?"

They feel it's just enough to say "look we're in a deficit" and leave it at that, without touching on the reasons that it was necessary to deficit spend. This is deplorable and shows a lack of concern regarding the single most important issue in this election season, which is national security. National security post-9/11 and the deficit are intimately linked.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't agree with the statement that national security, which probably translates to "the war on terrorism" is the most important issue of the day...


Spot false dilemmas now, ask me how!
(If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
Dan Chisholm
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 02, 2002
Posts: 1865
Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

Also hidden in his "amnesty" plan for illegal immigrants is the clause that they can take home the social security they earn here. Woah!!! am I the only person who thinks this is extremely idiotic?

Yes, it is idiotic because those other countries don't report to the United States when that person dies. Instead, those countries are very happy to allow the United States to keep sending checks to the families of people that died decades ago. Bush has the best jobs program for everyone on earth except Americans!
Jason Cox
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 21, 2004
Posts: 287
Being a super recovery artist only satifies those simmple minded enough to forget Bush and his administration are at least partly to blame.

I'd be a little careful there. Plenty of fingers can be pointed at the previous administration failing to do its job for national security. We could have made the whole 9/11 incident a moot issue many years before it occurred.
Ultimately, the real blame lays with the people who orchestrated and committed the act. Any finger pointing at the US government or its leaders is just pure politics.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Rob Aught:
Ultimately, the real blame lays with the people who orchestrated and committed the act. Any finger pointing at the US government or its leaders is just pure politics.

Bingo.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Bert Bates:
I guess this should be a whole new thread:
"What are the most important issues facing the US today?"

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't agree with the statement that national security, which probably translates to "the war on terrorism" is the most important issue of the day...

Definitely would make a good subject for another thread. And as such, I'll avoid challenging you on this one.
[ February 05, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
You would like for the truth about GWB to be a closed thread. I suppose that in a political discussion, one should just expect some opinion stretching by the Republicans.

I'm outraged that this is what you think of me. Just plain outrageous.
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
[Paul S]: As long as it isn't directed at an individual it is ok. It also does not have to be true.
Um, no. Insulting an individual who's on the ranch would be more likely to get edited or deleted, but targeting groups instead is not exactly protected behavior. "Be nice" still applies. Jason's comment wasn't too bad IMO, as it was mostly issue driven - though it would've been better IMO if it were more issue driven, like the followup just posted. I'm not too concerned about Jason's post here; I'm responding to the general characterization or our policy suggested by Paul S, which is not accurate as I see it. I'm guessing Paul S maybe feels our policies haven't been enforced consistently in the past, which is probably true in some cases. But that doesn't mean we're not trying.
[Jason]: "It seems to me"... That denotes a statement of opinion, not fact. I believe I am allowed to have those, whether or not they are shared by others.
Ummm, "it seems to me" does help here, but I wouldn't want to suggest it grants automatic immunity to whatever statement follows. "It seems to me that X is a jackass" is not too different from saying "X is a jackass", for example. "It seems to me" may blunt it a bit, but not enough - I'd rather encourage people to focus on where & why they disagree with X's statements or actions, not on X himself. Or on the group that X belongs to.

The hypocrisy/inconsistency continues. It is ok to say America is evil. It is ok to say that Bush and his supporters are either evil or simple minded. Just don't say anything about liberals or fill in the protected group.
To say our rules are not evenly applied is an understatement. Some topics are allowed no matter who is offended by them. Others are removed because they offend some.
The consistency of who gets warned and who doesn't is just not there.
This is not directed towards you personnaly Jim. You have mostly been fair and consistent.
[ February 05, 2004: Message edited by: Paul Stevens ]
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
To quantify the MD outrage, take Meaningless Drivel Poll. This should help us see the MD forrest through the trees. As I mentioned before, it would be totally unscientific, of course. But it would be interesting to compare the results with those of the general population.
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 17, 2001
Posts: 2823
I would have double bagged it. That seems to be the arguement most used.
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
DC: The first treasury secretary of the Bush administration did not agree with the Bush economic policy, so why should anyone else?
The question is whether or not trickle-down economics is valid economic theory. There are many prominent economists who feel that it is, and just as many who feel that it isn't.
DC: The reason that we are spending so much money in Iraq today is because Rumsfeld and Bush did not know what they were leading us into. They were just plain wrong.
Is it your assertion that the majority of the deficit is directly related to Iraq?
DC: Iraq was an optional war. It was not a response to 9/11.
Iraq was an inevitable war. The reasons we went in when we did are related to 9/11.
DC: We have a deficit to today because Bush cut taxes and increased spending during a recession.
But where was the increase spent?
DC: The gridlock resulting from a republican controlled Congress and a democrat in the White House would produce far better fiscal discipline than the irresponsible behavior that has been demonstrated by an unrestrained president Bush.
Don't worry, the Democrats definitely got their fair share of pork pushed through the spending bill. You raise an interesting question however: What would happen to spending given a Democrat controlled White House and legislature? My bet is that we'd move quite a bit closer to the socialist welfare state model, and citizens would be taxed beyond belief.
DC: In 2004, the only responsible choice is anyone but Bush.
And here I was thinking that the only responsible choice was Bush. I guess we'll see.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
But it would be interesting to compare the results with those of the general population.

I voted to Bush because till now his policies towards India,in general, has been OK.


"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Dan Chisholm
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 02, 2002
Posts: 1865
Jason,
We can all see the results of trickle-down economics. Even though it doesn't work, it sounds great in a campaign speech because it sounds like everyone gets something for nothing. Voters love something for nothing.
The war in Afghanistan was a result of 9/11. How much did we spend there? Iraq was not a result of 9/11. How much did we spend there?
Where did Bush spend more money? How much did Bush spend on Iraq and the prescription drug plan?
You said that I shouldn't worry because you believe that the democrats got their pork also. Are you suggesting that I'm a democrat? You need to learn that not everyone has a party affiliation. The Democrats are not the only people that dislike Bush. Anyone that can read the graph posted earlier has all the reason they need to dislike Bush.
[ February 05, 2004: Message edited by: Dan Chisholm ]
 
wood burning stoves
 
subject: To all my fellow Americans (others invited too)