Can JK beat GB?

[OperaTenor]

Thanks Barfle, I think I just found my wirte-in candidate!

[Rudy2toot]

I swore I wouldn't berate my own sister for proclaiming her allegiance to GB and I'm trying really hard to keep my trap shut around the office...
However, I will vote for whomever is most likely to beat GB and that looks like its going to be Kerry. I HOPE he can beat Bush. (that sounds funny outloud).

Let it be known that if you plan on voting for GB, don't mention it around me.
I've never been so politically focused in my life.

[Marye]

Originally posted by barfle:
I have finally found worthy of my vote. Too bad he's only running for governor of Texas.

Elvis, Jesus and Coca-Cola .... I have read Kinky Friedman

[lliam]

Originally posted by Marye:
You know Lliam, your boy Blair might suffer the same fate. Labour candidate ............ sure.

Alas Mayre, that is oh so true, the problem is, he doesn't have enough loyal cabinet ministers.

[Marye]

Originally posted by lliam:
Alas Marye, that is oh so true, the problem is, he doesn't have enough loyal cabinet ministers.

Poor Tony author of his own demise ...... Interesting, and way off topic too Lliam, on Canadian TV last evening was a Charles and Camilla special (Poor Charles, the press won't leave him alone... was the point) and at the same time on U.S. TV was "Diana the Secret Tapes" (Poor Diana, the press never left her alone....) I was amused.

[dai bread]

Interesting. We're not getting much info. about Kerry here apart from his war record and how he's carrying all the states' votes. Is he another Big Business stooge?

[lliam]

<small>[ 03-06-2004, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: lliam ]</small>

[lliam]

On Canadian TV last evening was a Charles and Camilla special (Poor Charles, the press won't leave him alone...


Sorry Marye, "poor Charles my **SE" what about the kids, they're moving out because of her.

Young Harry's out in Africa carrying on his mothers work against aids.

The media can't leave William alone. There's a competition on TV to find William a wife amongst the top ten are, Britney Spears, can you imagine Britney as a future Queen? What a load of bull***t.

Bytheway Mary I'm a strong Royalist but, we need to have a good clean out of parasitic distant cousins, and other hangers on.

[haggis]

rudy,

"Let it be known that if you plan on voting for GB, don't mention it around me.

But it is all right for you to mention who you’re planning to vote for around others?

Isn’t that a double standard?

I'll make a prediction. George Bush, nor any main stream responsible Republican will call Kerry a "moron" a "Nazi," "stupid" or any other name.

Is anyone willing to bet that Kerry or some other main stream responsible Democrats won't call President Bush one of those names?

And by "responsible" I don't mean the guy living in his mother's basement writing hate screeds online. I mean well-known politicians who have previously or currently hold prominent positions in their respective parties.

And Shos, you know there was no tax cut "for the rich." If you support redistribution of wealth, then you should state you support an entitlement program. To say the tax cut was for the rich is just disingenuous.

The top five percent of American tax payers pay over 50% of all taxes collected and have for over a decade. The top 1% pays over 1/3 of all taxes collected.

You can’t cut taxes for people who don’t PAY taxes. If you want to give them more than they paid then that’s call a redistribution of wealth and is socialism or communism; neither of those have worked very well.

I’m not a Republican; I would describe myself as a conservative libertarian. Shos knows I’m not 100% behind Bush mainly because of his spending, aided and abetted by almost every member of congress on both side of the aisle.

Bush has outspent ANY AMERCIAN PRESIDENT in history on social programs and education and I don’t feel throwing more money at them can solve those problems.

But in 2004, I am a one-issue voter and that issue is ensuring the security of the United States from terrorism. In my opinion, President Bush has pursued the right path on this issue. The thought of a President Kerry deciding this issue is a law enforcement issue scares me more than I care to admit.

If, as I suspect, Kerry wins the nomination and moves more to the center and comes out more strongly against terrorism and supports the aggressiveness established by the “Bush doctrine” then I will be certain to listen to him.

btw, I won’t call anyone “stupid,” ”Nazi” or “moron” or any other similar name this year either.

[Rudy2toot]

Haggis- touche!!
a forewarning to certain argument from me, who is usually quiet on controversial issues. I'm not assaulting your freedom of speech dear man, I'm threatening the wrath of passion on a particularly charged issue. And YOU!, Obvoiusly equally passionate this election year, snap like a steal trap. I beg your pardon.

I can not abide by political labels as none seem to fit too any meaningful degree. I am in favor of less government and more individual responsibility. I believe we have become a nation of sheep. We allow a few elected officials to use our country for personal gain and, in turn, point the finger at big government in a blame game and look to government to solve social ills.
George Bush and his cabinet represent big government in my eyes.
I hate to sound paranoid but I feel as if I'm stepping into a George Orwell novel lately.
I believe a change of party no matter the candidate, (even if a buffoon), would bring a halt to one of the most dangerous threats to our country and its potential imaginable.
Lets say Kerry turns out to be a freak. Four years in the opposite direction would be a good thing.
If Ralph Nadar had a shot, yes, I vote for him.

[shostakovich]

__________________________________________________
HAGGIS WROTE:
And Shos, you know there was no tax cut "for the rich." If you support redistribution of wealth, then you should state you support an entitlement program. To say the tax cut was for the rich is just disingenuous.

The top five percent of American tax payers pay over 50% of all taxes collected and have for over a decade. The top 1% pays over 1/3 of all taxes collected.

You can’t cut taxes for people who don’t PAY taxes. If you want to give them more than they paid then that’s call a redistribution of wealth and is socialism or communism; neither of those have worked very well.
--------------------------------------------------

I still say the tax cut is primarily for the rich, simply from the nature of the graduated tax. Of course they benefit most. I have no qualms about the richest 1% payng 33% of taxes. They can afford it best. I'm more upset by the great spread between the incomes of rich and poor. I think the government needs to take and redistribute to the needy. Even with the ugly bureaucratic graft, more money would get to the lowest echelons. "Trickle down" never makes it that far. I don't say reward the shiftless. Welfare needs to be scrutinized much more carefully.

__________________________________________________

HAGGIS AGAIN:
But in 2004, I am a one-issue voter and that issue is ensuring the security of the United States from terrorism. In my opinion, President Bush has pursued the right path on this issue. The thought of a President Kerry deciding this issue is a law enforcement issue scares me more than I care to admit.

If, as I suspect, Kerry wins the nomination and moves more to the center and comes out more strongly against terrorism and supports the aggressiveness established by the “Bush doctrine” then I will be certain to listen to him.
--------------------------------------------------

And my top priority is the economy, so I'm voting against Bush (for that and essentially everything else he's done). Europe may hate us, as Haggis contends, but we needn't keep giving them more reason for it. As for the war on terrorism, it can be better fought with international cooperation that Bush has damaged.

I won't call Bush any names now because of my respect for Haggis. But a whole year???-------
Shos

[dai bread]

Originally posted by Haggis:

......And Shos, you know there was no tax cut "for the rich." If you support redistribution of wealth, then you should state you support an entitlement program. To say the tax cut was for the rich is just disingenuous.

The top five percent of American tax payers pay over 50% of all taxes collected and have for over a decade. The top 1% pays over 1/3 of all taxes collected.

You can’t cut taxes for people who don’t PAY taxes....... [/QB]

Bush's tax cuts were presented here as just what Shos says, a cut for the rich. There has been one dissenting voice (I forget whose) saying pretty much what you said above, Haggis, so your comments counter our media line, rightly or wrongly. Obviously I'm personally in no position to judge.

One thing intrigues me though. How come your rich people pay tax? Ours twist their affairs into shapes that make a pretzel look like a highway in order to avoid it. So do companies. They have subsidiaries, associates, family trusts, wives as secretaries, head offices in tax havens; you name it they've thought of it and use it. Our top personal earners don't get their income or their taxes published, but the companies do. Our top tax rate is 39%. Most of the big companies report taxes of about half that.

As for the war on terrorism, I've seen nothing to change the view I stated long ago, that this war is to be fought by gaining international goodwill and by twisting the arms of bankers and industrialists very hard indeed. Also, that hunting terrorists is a police operation, not a military one. The military are for back-up only.

I don't think any U.S. administration has alienated as many friends as this one has.

[barfle]

In a way, I feel both Haggis and Shos are right about the tax cuts. The way the taxes are structured these days, virtually ANY tax cut will benifit the rich more than the poor, because the poor pay very little taxes anyway. But when it comes to describing Bush's tax cut as "for the rich," my point is, "What's your point?" I'm far from the opinion that even rich Americans are under-taxed.

My gripes with Bush are manyfold. First, I feel he's so taken with the power he's been able to grab as a result of 9/11 that he is now a junkie. The blasphemously named USA PATRIOT act contains many passages that not only threaten but attack our Constitutionally guaranteed rights of dissent. This act, as you may recall, was pushed through Congress in less time than it takes to read it with the threat of "you're either with me or against me" in the face of terrorism. Congress bears significant blame for allowing themselves to be bullied that way, but the primary responsibility rests on the shoulders of the bully.

Bush's claim of being a conservative seem a bit different than his actions. As of six months ago, he had not vetoed a single spending bill during his administration, and I haven't heard that his record has changed.

And then, there is the war in Iraq. While Saddam was indeed a tyrant, he represented no threat to us, and even his immediate neighbors felt his presence was not a danger to them. The primary reason given for going was WMD, and there were inspectors on site, claiming cooperation from the locals, a week before we invaded. The primary proclaimed excuse for our invasion has not been discovered, and we've had the run of the place for about a year. I don't know about anyone else, but I can certainly feel the egg dripping off my face.

Finally, the war in Afghanistan needs some attention. Apparently, we had intelligence that told us that Al qeda was behind the 9/11 attacks, and that the organization was spread throughout Afghanistan. This message was shared with Pakistan, but so far it hasn't been shared with the American public. Further, now that we've beaten the crap out of whatever infrastructure exhisted there, we've left the rubble behind, without capturing public enemy #1. When it comes to meeting our goals in the so-called fight against terrorism, we've captured Saddam (who had very little, if any, connection to 9/11), and haven't found bin laden or WMDs. I'm not sure why we aren't doing what we can to at least replace the infrastructure we destroyed.

I did see an attack ad against Kerry last night. It cast a pretty wide accusation of him being just another Massachusetts liberal, and had some pretty goofy pictures of him.

I've also seen the Bush ad with the 9/11 pictures in it. While I don't blame the administration for allowing those attacks to happen, clearly the evidence is in that the FBI ignored the warnings about several foreigners taking flying lessons, but not landing lessons, and that there's no penalty for remaining in the US on an expired student visa.

[haggis]

And I would think that everyone’s comments reflect their beliefs and I respect that.

I agree with Barfle that there were failures in properly assessing the pre- 9/11 intelligence and those failures contributed to the events on 9/11. I would also like to see consequences for those failures. Having said that, there’s not much you can do other than fire some people and try to learn from their mistakes.

In my opinion, the tempest in a teapot over the Patriot Act is due more to media hype than substance in the act. As a “power seizing measure” the Patriot Act is pretty tame compared to other laws and acts taken during times of national conflict and fears.

Before the “Patriot Act” was passed, we had a much more egregious law on the books, the “Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act” enacted by President Clinton in 1996, after the Oklahoma City Bombing.

This law gives the U.S. Attorney General the power to use the armed services against the civilian population, essentially nullifying the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. That certainly went much further than the Patriot Act.

It also contains a provision that selectively suspends Habeas Corpus. President Clinton attacked his critics as 'unpatriotic' saying ”There is nothing patriotic about our pretending that you can love your country but despise your government.” Almost exactly what the “Sedition Act” in 1798 said you couldn’t do. Where was the outrage over that? It’s still a law and it takes more power away that anything the “Patriot Act” does.

And the language and powers conferred by either the “Patriot Act” or the “Anti-Terrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act” are relatively tame when compared to previous measures taken by our government in times of national conflict.
.
Shortly after the Revolutionary War steps such as the “Alien Act’ and the “Sedition Act”, effectively banned all criticism of the president or government.

During the Civil War Pres. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus several times and it wasn’t until after the war that the Supreme Court held he had exceeded his authority.

During WWI dissenters and those who opposed the draft received long prison sentences and some immigrants were forcibly repatriated to their countries of origin.

Later on, the courts rejected all of the convictions and FDR issued amnesty to those convicted. If you haven’t read about the shameful trial and incarceration of Eugene V. Debs, you should look him up someday.

Of course, during WWII we have FDR’s E.O. 9066; Asian bigotry pure and simple.


Barfle, you mentioned that you think President Bush is taking too much power. When it comes to power grabbing, he’s an amateur compared to FDR

FDR’s presidency is probably as close as the U.S. came to losing control of "government by the people" since Washington was offered a Monarchy or the Generals decided to take over after Lincoln’s assassination. He came very close to following through with his threat to increase the size of the Supreme Court; something I can’t believe our current President would suggest nor would the people accept it; and believe me, when FDR threaten to do that, he had the support of the American public. It’s not for nothing FDR was the sole reason the 22nd Amendment was passed!

Dai Bread,
Thank you for your comments concerning taxation in NZ. That proves that simply passing restrictive and complicated tax laws mean people will try to get around them. Failing that, they normally move somewhere else where the tax laws are more favorable to them. I’m not familiar with NZ tax levels, but if they’re anything like England or Sweden, they are probably so high that most Americans would be shocked.(Subsequent research reflects that NZ’s tax rate is around 40%?? Is that right? At what amount of income does that kick in?)

For instance Including local taxes, Sweden's top marginal rate of income tax is almost 60%, and (worse still) becomes payable at an income of SKr209,200 ($28,000). In contrast, America's top federal tax rate of 40% does not bite until over $260,000. No wonder many talented scientists and engineers have been leaving Sweden.

Shos, Sweden is a good model for the type of entitlement programs that you favor. Do you still think the U.S. should start taxing people at the 40% rate when they earn $30K?

Shos, what part of the economy worries you the most?

Ladies and gentlemen, we are blessed to live in the greatest country on earth and it doesn’t take too much research to prove that. As I’ve said to Shos (and here) a number of times. The U.S. is too big and unwieldy for any president to screw up in 8 years, despite the hype.

Dai Bread said that the current administration has alienated more people than before. Right or wrong, in November a majority of the American voters will decide if they feel the security of the U.S. outweighs that concern.

[barfle]

The great depression was a much more serious crisis than the 9/11 attacks. Virtually everyone directly felt the depression, and I can (kind of) understand how people felt the need for the government to "do something," however mistaken that attitude may have been in retrospect.

For certain, presidents have been grabbing power since Adams. And Bush's, although not necessarily as large and blatant as those of his predecessors, is IN ADDITION to all that going before. Simply because his abuse of the Constitution is only 10% as bad as Roosevelt's doesn't excuse it, and doesn't mean it's not abuse.

[Marye]

Originally posted by lliam:
On Canadian TV last evening was a Charles and Camilla special (Poor Charles, the press won't leave him alone...

Ah, Lliam, my saying, "poor Charles" and "poor Diana" was the ANGLE of the television specials, I was not offering my personal feelings about the Royals. I thought it was amusing that Canada had the "poor Charles" production and the U.S. had the "poor Diana" production AND on the same night.

[OperaTenor]

Just for the record, I'm technically "poor" and pay taxes. IMO, anything short of a discussion of enacting a flat tax is useless rhetoric with regard to fairness.

Up until recently, I had a measure of respect for GW as a man, but his recent official actions have led me to believe he either is cowing to the reactionary advice his subordinates are giving him, or his stance has shifted severely. Either way, I feel the most recent attempt to legislate morality(which is a subjective value to start with), and Kerry's lame response to it are dangerous portents for the future of our individual freedoms. Do you really think it's a far leap from constitutionally banning same-sex marriages to making Jews wear armbands with the Star of David on it?

Could I be perceived as a threat to national security for asking that question?

I guess that makes me a "socially progressive libertarian"?

<small>[ 03-08-2004, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: operatenor ]</small>

[haggis]

” The great depression was a much more serious crisis than the 9/11 attacks.”

Wow! Barfle, you and I have reached a major departure point that we will have to respectfully disagree with each other on. Do you think the Depression was more serious than WWII?

The depression was the result of many things but chief among the culprits was shortsighted government economic policies, including raised interest rates and protectionist measures by Congress. It eventually spread to every industrialized country in the world. That gives you an idea how long the economy of the U.S. has affected the economy of the world. My parents grew up in the depression and its affects on my father were with him until he died. That said, the Depression was not malevolence forced on the United States by an enemy that wanted to see every American dead or converted to Islam.

9/11/01 was an attack on the American people by a group of radical Islamicists bent on scaring the United States into withdrawing from all dealing in the Middle East, if not the world.

Is there any doubt in your mind that if the attackers could have killed 30,000, 300,000 or 3 million they would have?

The United States is engaged in a war that we have to win. There will be no compromise, unless, of course you’re willing to convert to Islam. I’m not.

Tony Blair, England’s Prime Minister gets it right:

“The point about September 11th was not its detailed planning; not its devilish execution; not even, simply, that it happened in America, on the streets of New York. All of this made it an astonishing, terrible and wicked tragedy, a barbaric murder of innocent people.
But what galvanised me was that it was a declaration of war by religious fanatics who were prepared to wage that war without limit. They killed 3000.
But if they could have killed 30,000 or 300,000 they would have rejoiced in it.
The purpose was to cause such hatred between Moslems and the West that a religious jihad became reality; and the world engulfed by it. . . .
This is not a time to err on the side of caution; not a time to weigh the risks to an infinite balance; not a time for the cynicism of the worldly wise who favour playing it long.
Their worldly wise cynicism is actually at best naivete and at worst dereliction.”

Barfle, I respect your position and beliefs. I’ve done about as much as I can to demonstrate my position and viewpoint. I at least appreciate your reasoning and logic.

I have to admit that I’m totally baffled by self-proclaimed, “Bush haters.” The “Clinton haters” equally baffled me.

Rudy earlier mention that he thought I was

” equally passionate this election year”

that’s not so.

I would be open to voting for someone who, in my opinion, “gets it” about the war on terror. On this subject, if any, am I passionate.

But, as we have all demonstrated by our comments, I appear to be in the minority concerning this issue here and who knows, maybe in the country. I certainly disagree with anyone who believes law enforcement and civil courts can fight the war on terror. I would point to Germany’s recent acquittal of a 9/11 conspirator and Zacarias Moussaoui’s own legal maneuverings in tying up the courts as examples why treating terror as a crime doesn’t work.

But then, that’s just my opinion.

Want to really “wind up” the “Bush haters”? Point out to them that Jeb Bush might run for president in 2008………just a thought

[piqaboo]

Tony Blair, as quoted by Haggis:
The purpose was to cause such hatred between Moslems and the West that a religious jihad became reality; and the world engulfed by it. . . .

And so, we dove into war in two countries, trashed two infrastructures and created lots more widows and orphans, pretty much giving the terrorists what they want.
Had we captured bin Laden, had we control of Afghanistan, I could think differently. But in these areas, we have failed and just gave new incentive to anti-American fanaticism.

I fear Iraq is going the same way but since we are trying to rebuild there, I reserve judgement (tho I deplore the way we failed to preserve what already existed as we "liberated" the country).

Jeb Bush, '08.......
Dai, what does it cost to get an immigration visa to NZ? For a british citizen? For a yank? Any work in biotech out there or should I get my teaching credential?

[Marye]

Piq? You and OT Looking to live in NZ? I love NZ, best sailors, America's Cup winners... no wait that was Alinghi of Switzerland... no wait..

I find this thread very interesting. Still, profile pictures give away political leanings, and personalities in a more direct fashion, don't you think?