Mackie what about my last post on taxation of corporate america did you not understand. Yes, job growth has been dismal. A big part of that is because we have become the most productive society in our nation's history. Do you understand this? Do you understand what this means? It means we are just becoming too efficient. In the past, we would hit a recession, fire workers, then increase the workload on existing workers then when times got better we would hire them back. Now we don't have to hire them back because what we are finding out is that the existing worker can easily handle the increased workload thereby mitigating any need to hire them back. The only way business can hire back these workers is to create new jobs. These are jobs that did not exist before. And the only way to do this is to cut taxes and give corporate america the incentive to take risk and invest more capital in growth. Do you understand this? But you liberals hate corporate america. You think they are evil so you want to tax, tax, tax and then tax them some more. Then at the end of the day you can't figure out why they don't want to spend what little money they have left hire more workers and expand their companies. This is not rocket science guys. If you want to create job growth, you have to got to cut taxes, period. Bush is trying to do this. Now he also has to stop spending money like a freaking 16 year old girl at the mall. But we need much more aggressive tax cuts in this country but the democrats in Washington are fighting this tooth and nail. So blaming Bush for the lack of jobs is like blaming the Eagles fans for losing to the Panthers last week. It's not their fault. Now maybe if we could just be a more unproductive country then we would have the need to hire more people to get the same amount of work done, but you don't really want that do you?
AAA, Maverick et al: You have very eloquently stated the reasons you feel the country is better run by the Republican Party then it was or would be by anyone else. You are of course entitled to your opinions. And certainly arguing the state of the economy could develop into a full fledged debate. Is is good? Bad? Why? How? Etc. Was the war in Iraq the right thing to do? Wrong? Was Clinton a worse guy than Bush? Was the silverware taken out of the Whitehouse and the Whitehouse "trashed" (please...you can't possibly believe this shit, but ok...it is your right to believe anything). However, my post was NOT ABOUT these issues. My post was about one thing. And that is that GWB has the ability to blow the next election. Against All Odds. Period. I am not going to argue politics in this thread. Clearly this is an issue everyone sees through their own very subjective eyes. The conservatives can make their very strong cases on certain issues, and so can the liberals. I am not here to attack either school of thought. Maverick seems to feel relieved of the great fear he experienced during the "Clinton bubble"...and now that the Dow is back almost to it's all time highs again, the story is different because Bush is in power, so a high Dow is a good thing instead of a scary thing No spin or bias with Mav as usual. Very objective. And so it goes. We will see things as we want to see them. We will give credit or lay blame as we wish. But all this is irrelevant to the meaning of my post that Mav was almost ready to dissect line by line but didn't have the time...instead he just made a wonderful endorsement of everything Bush. All I said (or meant to say...I am not as eloquent or as insightful or as intelligent or as well informed as AAA or Mav obviously, so I guess I did not make my point clearly enough) was that BUSH CAN LOSE THIS ELECTION!!! I truly do not think he has the ability to take criticism. And as President, he WILL BE criticized. It comes with the territory. This is about the man's ability to communicate and keep his composure. This is MY impression of GWB. Can I be wrong? Absolutely. We will see what happens. But I firmly believe that ANY candidate will make GWB look bad in any debate. Any format. Yes, there will be formats that will more favorable to him. Just as last time. But there will be the usual three debates. He can only have it all his way with one. That is how the game is played now. You believe the "liberals" "hate" corporate America. Where this comes from, I can't imagine. And the "liberal press"? Where are they? But what does any of this have to do with what I wrote? Maverick...I just don't understand your post. You started to respond to what I wrote, and then made a speech that addressed none of what I said. Is it because you agree with me? Look, we all share one hope. And that is for a peaceful and prosperous society in which to live. Which lying thieving scumbag politicians run the show doesn't (fortunately) seem to matter. Our system evens things out enough to keep us generally on an even keel. They are ALL lying thieving scumbags. Bush's problem is that he is the current lying thieving scumbag. So he will be the target of the most attacks in this year's election. If it were a Democrat in office now, then he too would be under the gun. That's just how it works. Clinton was just slicker. More polished and a better politician (I did NOT say a better PERSON or even a better PRESIDENT...there is a huge difference). So he was re-elected in a cakewalk. Bush isn't Clinton. This is what all incumbents running for re-election must face. It is (and this was my entire point) a matter of if he (Bush) can take it. I don't have the impression he is up to it. I think he will explode. Just my opinion. Certainly I may be very wrong. But I would be very surprised if I am. And yeah, I admit to feeling the man is not Presidential material. And yeah, I would like to see him voted out of office. But this is NOT what my post was about. It was about how I see the possiblity of a very popular President self destructing against all odds. Peace, RS
Brother Error/RS, Greetings and salutations. I hope you're having a good 2004 thus far. I too will refrain from slinging the same old rhetoric back and forth and simply say that yes, it is quite possible that Bush will lose. I don't think he will, but yes it is possible. However, I would appreciate you going into further detail on the above quoted comment re: Reagan, the hostages, and the "deal" that was made "to win the 1980 election." Surely you jest....?
Hey my brother Hap.....I hope you too are having a good and prosperous and fruitful new year. "Surely I jest"? Well, it seems that my other favorite conservative AAA believes that Iran-Contra was "made up". So perhaps despite the fact that Oliver North has claimed otherwise, and even Mr. Reagan himself admitted that it happened (without his knowledge....always a good measure of a strong leader), perhaps the Republican party is just not capable of doing anything wrong. Watergate must have been a frame up of Nixon. But for the "conspiracy buffs", here's a link to get you started: (I wish I could remember more details about a certain Lebanese gentleman who was "allegedly" involved in Reagan's back door political machinations with the Iranian regime in 1980, but I do recall that he was also the source of the "yellowcake" information used by GWB....I will find out his name and post further info when I have the time). http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/coupreaganbush.htm I would also strongly recommend a look at this link: http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/051499a.html These (above links) are of course just primers. Do a little searching on the internet, or the library, and you will find some very reliable sources quoted on the whole episode. You will, of course, also find plenty of denial and alternative "explanations" of the amazingly coincidental release of the hostages minutes after Reagan's Presidency was attained, signed, sealed and delivered. And as an added bonus, because it is just too easy when you deal with FACTS, here is a link to explain a little HISTORY for AAA about the "made up" Iran/Contra affair (this of no conjecture...just American HISTORY): http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0825447.html Peace, RS
But Karl Rove won't blow it. All Dubya has to do is stand up there and read the teleprompter...he doesn't even have to read well, which is fortunate, because he can't. m
RS, I believe I said Iran contra was a made-up scandal, but I don't have time to go back and check right now. There is a big difference. Just as with Watergate and Clinton's long list of misdeeds, there were things done that were ripe for exploitation by partisan opponents and the media. The question is how serious were these actions? Was it really a bad thing for Reagan to fight communism in Latin America? Because that was the issue. The "contra" part was the Nicarauguan "contras" who were fighting the communist government. The whole episode was made necessary because, for some unfathomable reason, liberals in congress seemed to think that the people of Latin Amercia were better off living under communist dictatorships, and did their best to make that happen. Now on to your original point. Can Bush blow the election? Yes, of course. I am on record here as suggesting that he has an incipient problem with his conservative base because of perceived neglect of their issues and big spending. Honestly, I don't think he will suffer a meltdown or anything like that. He seems to me to be very controlled. As for the debate, I seem to recall him holding his own pretty well against the supposedly vastly more intelligent and articulate Al Gore. Ordinary voters do not always identify with some pompous Washington politicla hack who loudly claims he has all the answers. Gosh, did I just describe John Kerry? The bottom line is the country is pretty evenly divided, but the Republicans seem to have an electoral edge through their control of the South and much of the West, ie the "red" states from the USA Today map. I know it is hard for the Dem partisans to accept, but much of the country likes and respects the President and feels he is doing his best at a very difficult task. A lot can happen, but as of now it is Bush's race to lose.
So you don't think it's coincidence that the top Democratic candidate is polling high during the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES? LOL... talk to me during the GOP convention.
No, actually the issue was if laws were broken. So basically you seem to find ways to justify illegal activities if commited by Republicans, yet if a Democrat jaywalks, it is a serious crime. I cannot and do not disagree with all your ideals. Just in how you draw a line in the sand, and depending on who it is that crosses that line, THAT determines whether it is a noble crossing, or an evil crossing. Sometimes in the real world, the ends do justify the means. But this was not what the context of my comments was meant to address. And yeah, I agree with you. The election is Bush's to lose. So where is our argument? Seemingly we agree on more than we disagree on. But I can't see how you find everything "conservative" to be "good", and everything "liberal" to be bad. Let me throw out one example....I would like to hear an explanation of how something works in the minds of Conservatives (and obviously I am talking about the stereotype right wing Limbaugh ditto-heads, NOT normal registered Republicans): Abortions = Bad Birth of unwanted children = Good Gay Marriages = Bad Gay couples adopting children = Bad Children taken from gay couples or denied homes with gay couples = Good Children denied willing loving but gay adoptive parents = Good Why is everything so black and white in this ditto-head world? I mean it just goes on and on: Guns = Good Death penalty = Good Pro Choice = Bad I guess I don't get it, and I never will. ????????????????????????????????? Peace, RS
Abortions = Bad Birth of unwanted children = Good Gay Marriages = Bad Gay couples adopting children = Bad Children taken from gay couples or denied homes with gay couples = Good Children denied willing loving but gay adoptive parents = Good How about this. Abortions=murder=bad Birth of unwanted children=giving life a chance=good Gay marriages=I don't care Gay couples adopting children=children need a mother=so bad Children taken from gay couples or denied homes with gay couples=again children need the balance of a man and a woman, but otherwise I don't really care Children denied willing loving but gay adoptive parents=again, children need balance, they need a mother and a father, but I prefer gay parents to an orphanage. I mean it just goes on and on: Guns = Good Death penalty = Good Pro Choice = Bad Guns=the ability to protect one's family=good Death penalty=bad many many conservatives do not support the death penalty, many democrats do, this is not a right/left issue pro choice=murder=bad See, it's not that hard RS.