But I don't care... Please tell me why do people want to vote for Bush? He can barely answer simple questions. He claims to be improving the economy by adding new jobs, but many of them are service jobs. He uses all sorts of sneaky, meaningless double language. He got us into this illogical war. Call me an anti-Bush liberal. I don't care. I'm at my wit's end with frustrating. All the research I have been doing leads me to one conclusion-Bush is not good for this country and in the future I'll highlight several reasons why. But for now... I simply don't know how much more of this I can take. Maybe I'm not bright. Perhaps it's the fact that I know very little about politics but it feels WRONG to me. So many things. The environment, interfering with overtime, tax cuts, gay marriage, listening to this man answer any question that isn't neatly scripted. It bothers me. It has been bothering me since 2000. Even after 9/11 all I could think was, "He's saying all the wrong things, all the things that lead to war and chaos and everyone is praising him." Maybe I am simply young, blind and ignorant.... Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I think it's not how good Bush is, but how bad his opponent is.
On the other hand, I'm a Canadian.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
What do you mean by "service jobs" exactly? Do you mean military service? Or jobs that produce a service versus a tangible product?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
You are young, blind, and ignorant. Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
Why would people vote for Kerry then?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Service as in Mc Donalds, working at the stupormarket, that sort of thing...
I don't really know much about Kerry, I admit, but, he sounds more together. Like he has an actual plain instead of just a series of clever soundbites designed to hide the fact that there IS no plan. That is my observation, but I am cynical and bitter about politics these days.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Like he has an actual plain instead of just a series of clever soundbites designed to hide the fact that there IS no plan. That is my observation, but I am cynical and bitter about politics these days.
I don't know enough about it myself, I'm just pointing out that this may be not be the most objective of viepoints. But I think you already know that. You are frustrated and disillusioned. I feel that way too.
But this is a good place to discuss this. You are doing the right thing. You are explaining how things look to you and asking others for their input. They might be able to help you solidify how you perceive things--help you be more confident in your own objectivity--and also help you understand why someone else might vote for Bush. You may not agree with it, but you may actually come to respect it. Or not. Posted by WraithSword (Member # 6829) on :
I frankly think that Bush is a pansy who is afraid to look at the truth. War is the only good thing that humanity has ever invented, and he's always trying to avoid that.
Kerry would know how to fight empty wars for no gain. But he would do so without understanding that war has its own meaning, independent of national advantage.
I find it very amusing that Kerry is losing this campaign so badly, particularly since it is the result of his own stupidity rather than anything clever the Bush team has done. But I have to say I would find a dark satisfaction in the ironies that would come about should Kerry win somehow.
Elda Taluta...This is the truth of humanity. We shouldn't be fighting for rational reasons of national self interest. We should fight wars blindly and idiotically, that is why Kerry is preferable to Bush. He will plunge us into idiotic wars that serve no purpose except to spread the killing.
Still, one cannot vote for the man on such a basis. The correct thing is to engineer madness and chaos in the world, and let that chaos bring fools into power. Kerry will be a better tool to us if he is brought to power by the spread of unreason and lawless actions, not by a rational process like a valid election.
The plans have already been set in motion. Those who want to vote for Bush are deceived, complacently imagining that such a flimsy thing as law can implement their impure desires. It is anarchy and crime that allow humans to show their true nature. The man that will unleash war for its own sake must be put in power by actions that destroy our false "morality".
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
"War is the only good thing humans have ever invented?" O...K... We're not apes anymore. We need to evolve out of that stupid war crap is what I think.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I think it was pretty obvious that he was being sarcastic in some sort of weird way. Possibly trying to create some sort of a satire. Or at least I assume is was just a bad satire, I don't think he's that ignorant.
[ September 07, 2004, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I hope not... On some occasions satire goes right over my head...
Posted by WraithSword (Member # 6829) on :
Follow the Madlax links and you'll come to understand. Or not, I can't vouch for your intelligence level, after all.
If people really want to avoid war, they will act intelligently to prevent aggression while promoting ideals of peace and unity. So, if you really think that war is such a bad idea, go ahead and vote for Mr. "Terrorists and Warmongering Dictators are bad! bad,BAD I say! Stop commiting acts of violence against innocent people, or I'll stop you!"
Tse...what a goofball. He can't stop what's coming.
Okay, I applaud the effort, I really do. Trying to prevent needless war and violence is a fine and idealistic goal. But I'm hardly about to pin my hopes on the success of such a impossible program. War, real war, will be unleashed. This resistance against the tide of history may gain you a little time, a few years to enjoy that shadow of what humanity can never have in this life. But the end will be the same.
Appeals to rational self interest? Don't make me laugh. Self interest isn't rational, it is utterly irrational. War is coming because the people of the world desire this thing. That is their true nature, and it cannot be suppressed forever.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Interesting... You sound like some other guy I've heard on another site... Really, terrorism is an abstract concept. A symptom of the disease that is oppression... You can't really fight a fire with fire anymore than you can fight a war with more war... But, this is hard to convince people of, so... War ensues...
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Of course. Madmen with guns shooting children, and it's not THEIR fault, it's OUR fault for being nasty to them.
I am no great defender of the US of A, but there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with this kind of reasoning...
Posted by WraithSword (Member # 6829) on :
For all you know, I might well be the guy from the other site. Feel free to name names. If my posts here sound like my posts elsewhere, then that might mean that I'm not too crazy to leave.
And that would be nice...because this place really is quite a cesspool of idiocy. Being the responsible and upstanding person I am, I have to come here when my mind is severely deranged rather than allowing my insanity to infect more intelligible sites. But that doesn't mean I don't find it rather distasteful.
Hah, the mental leper calling his fellows "unclean". How ironic.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm voting for Bush because I support most of his party's social agenda.
In this day and age, you don't vote for a man so much as you vote for which party you want to have control over the Executive branch. The President, I'm thinking, is a figurehead.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I don't get Wraithsword either. And, as it happens, I'm not actually planning to vote for Bush. So technically I shouldn't be answering this question....
But it comes down to this--the only way to deal with force is force, or at least the credible threat thereof. It's not pleasant, by any means, but that's how the world works. What I object to isn't Bush's use thereof but his incompetence in doing it.
As for the rest, have of the things you find objectionable about Bush I like about him. They're policy differences, and shouldn't be too hard to understand. You're in favor of gay marriage, so naturally you object to his opposition; I'm not, so his opposition pleases me. I don't see how that's difficult to understand.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Synth, is there honestly any point in answering? You post these searching questions in a significant number of threads. Whenever someone does attempt to answer, you write tortured posts listing examples of what you don't like, with no links or analysis, then say something to the effect of "I just don't get it."
There's probably dozens of posts defending Bush on each of those topics (except maybe the unscripted answering thing), and none of these have led you closer to understanding.
Why torture yourself? You're obviously not voting for Bush, and that's fine. It's a democracy.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I find it very amusing that Kerry is losing this campaign so badly..."
You know he's not, right? Considering that he's running against an incumbent president with twice the warchest, he's doing pretty well; Kerry was always the underdog in this thing, y'know.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You can't really fight a fire with fire anymore than you can fight a war with more war...
History has proven you wrong.
The most common method for deposing unjust governments, expansionist empires, and oppressive regimes is through bloodshed.
It's not the best way, certainly. What everyone would LIKE to see is for despots, tyrants, madmen, and fanatics to have a change of heart, and begin to govern responsibly and benignly.
But people of that sort are not given over to changes of heart.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Bush, Kerry, peas from the same pod.
Bush went to war in Iraq... Kerry was one who voted in favor of him doing so. Bush gave an unwise tax cut, Kerry voted in favor of that, too. The Patriot Act, might not be surprising that Kerry voted for that as well. Soaring deficit? Kerry's been a senior member of the Senate and has ridden the train with the rest of them.
Bush wins, Kerry wins, it just won't matter. It's just a fraternity wrestling match between the children of privilege.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Bush wins, Kerry wins, it just won't matter."
If you believe this, Sopwith, will you do me the personal favor of voting for Kerry? I'd appreciate it, and since you don't care one way or the other....
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
If I were voting I'd probably vote for Kerry, if only because I feel pretty let-down by Bush.
But I'll probably be writing someone in.
Oh well, one less for Bush, I suppose.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Basically, when it comes down to it, I just look at the upcoming presidential election and wonder how, out of a population as large as we have, these were the two best choices?
My vote will probably go to Kerry this time around, purely based on two things: 1) John Edwards and 2)Dick Cheney.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I'll write in Tom Davidson if you will.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Basically, when it comes down to it, I just look at the upcoming presidential election and wonder how, out of a population as large as we have, these were the two best choices?
*cries*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Ooo. . . Tom Davidson.
:considers:
I'm not trying to flatter him, either. Tom's stance on abortion is pretty close to mine, and I imagine that we're pretty similar as far as fiscal policies are concerned. . . and he comes off as so darn honest.
If ONLY he was from the South, he might have a chance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not 35, sadly. And I completely avoided combat action in Vietnam.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The deferrment for toddlers is pretty bulletproof.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:sad:
Alas! If only Tom were more aged, we might have a president we could respect-- or at least agree has some shred of humanity hanging on his carcass!
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:And that would be nice...because this place really is quite a cesspool of idiocy. Being the responsible and upstanding person I am, I have to come here when my mind is severely deranged rather than allowing my insanity to infect more intelligible sites. But that doesn't mean I don't find it rather distasteful.
Methinks the Lady doth protest too much.
(Actually, methinks loud protestations and tortured expositions are best ignored out of politeness, but that's pretty much the same thing. Except for the telling you part.)
On the other hand, welcome to Hatrack. There's room for everybody! *smile
[ September 07, 2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
First of all, Digging_Holes did I say that? Did I specifically say it was our fault for being nasty to them as you put it? No. I said that violence leads to more violence and war leads to more war. It's a logical conclusion. No, my way of reasoning is that the policies of the past didn't really help the situation and it is their fault if they react violently, killing innocents in the process in car bombs and other terrorist attacks. But, it's never-ending. Which is why people must at least make sure they know what the hell they are doing. Which is why I still, after all these months cannot understand the war in Iraq. I was neutral when it first started. I listened to the news programs. Read the opinions of Orson Scott Card and various people on other sites that would say things like, "We should just blow them up and turn the Middle East into a gas station." The war's been bungled from the beginning. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was the looting at the beginning of the war. I listened to this one scientist cry because precious artifacts were stolen from his musuem. There is proof that Hussein had nothing to do with Al Queda. Most of the terrorist were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, none were from Iraq and yet here we are creating more future terrorist than stopping them. Sure, it's good to get out a terrible dictator, but not at the risk of becoming what you're claiming to stop! Just the audacity to use Abu Graib as a prison then turning around and torturing people in ways Saddamn Hussein wouldn't have is enough to turn my stomach. It's sickening and it hurts. It hurts knowing that my country is responsible for these actions even if it does turn out to be a small sliver of people. It's unbearable hearing more news of this unfold; boys raped, doctors lying and saying that beating victims died of natural causes, children, teenagers imprisoned! A country invading another country and claiming they are doing it for noble reasons like stopping terrorism and over throwing a dictator.
Sure, some people can dismiss it as nothing more than frustrated soldiers letting off steam or they can claim it's no more harmless than a fraternity initiation. Obviously they have no idea what goes on with a lot of hazing rituals. It's enough to turn the stomach and in the eyes of these Iraqis it's dehumanizing and horrible beyond belief.
As for sources, most would just dismiss mine as nothing more than Liberal rhetoric, but who cares? This is something to think about no matter where it comes from. Currently I am half-way through a book called Bushwhacked by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose. So far they have talked about Bush's education policy and how ineffective it is, how it focuses more on testing, thus causing a lot of students that have trouble with the test to fall through the cracks. It is also underfunded. They also talk about meat inspection and how regulations have been weakened allowing the listeria bacteria to go unnoticed on cold cuts which can cause the deaths of a lot of people, they talked about OSHA and how that was weakened and about Bush's environmental policies. I take most things with a grain of salt, but if these things are true, if voting for Bush leads to unregulated meat and weakened environmental laws in favour of big business among other things, he's not worth voting for!
As for Democrats voting for the war back in 2003. Most Democrats are pansies. Most of the were still caught up in the post 9/11 frenzy and probably didn't want to look unpatrotic. Most of them probably truly believed attacking Iraq was the right thing to do. Or, most of them had their heads up a certain dark part of their anatomy for several months after 9/11 which kept them from reading amendments, laws and acts before voting them in. Who knows? I wish we could honestly strip congress and the senate of... everyone... and get brand new people in who will actually THINK. Who will use at least 5% of their brain power and realize that their actions affect the US. Because of them voting for that war, thousands of our soldiers lives are being jeopardized. Politics ought to be about checking and balancing the other party, not blindly going along with things like lemmings... Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And accusing people of going along as lemmings is not exactly fair to them, is it?
It's just possible that people who disagree with you actually thought about the issues before coming to their conclusions. You want a civil debate, start from the assumption that your opponents aren't idiots, dupes, lemmings, or sheep.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I wish we could honestly strip congress and the senate of... everyone... and get brand new people in who will actually THINK."
I think you'd be surprised at how quickly the new people would resemble the old people. The problem, IMO, isn't the Congresspeople; it's their aides-de-camp and electioneers.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Syn-- you imply that the American led coalition in Iraq is as bad or worse than Sadaam's regime.
Am I reading you right on this? Can you explain why you feel this way, keeping in mind that there are more parts to governing a country than running its prisons?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear. There's a man with a gun over there, Telling me I got to beware. I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down.
There's battle lines being drawn. Nobody's right if everybody's wrong. Young people speaking their minds, Getting so much resistance from behind. I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down.
What a field day for the heat. A thousand people in the street, Singing songs and carrying signs, Mostly say, “Hooray for our side.” It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deep: Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. You step out of line, the man come and take you away.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
At this point, I don't really care about being fair. Rude, but true. I see instances of people just blindly accepting policies, like the Democrats and Republicans after 9/11. I saw people get temporarily black listed for disagreeing with the government's policies back then, Dixie Chicks come to mind. Somehow that is rather contrary to what they claim to be fighting against. As for Iraq, I admit it, I'm ignorant. All I know is what little information I can gather about the situation. I have to do more research. But, one thing that bothers me. If all of this was going on back in the 70s and 80s, why didn't the US step in until 91 and only when Kuwait was at risk? People seem to overlook the fact that Iraq was an ally that the US sold weapons to (France and Germany as well.) Again, I'm ignorant, but, it is useful to post to get more info from multiple sides...
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact Probably in the eyes of the Iraqis torture on the US would be worse than under Saddam, I do not know... Sexual torture to them is millions of times worse than being hung by the arms. http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444 It just makes me sick... mainly it's because people who are claiming to be liberators sent to help the people there are doing this... It hurts...
[ September 07, 2004, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Service as in Mc Donalds, working at the stupormarket, that sort of thing...
It really bothers me when people talk like this. If you feel that working in a restaurant or a supermarket is too demeaning, then you had better be willing to never *EVER* patronize such places. There is nothing wrong with honorable work.
Not that they are great jobs, mind you -- I understand that. But if you ever eat fast food, then you are supporting a system that requires people to work in fast food.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Lets get this straight once and for all.
The American led Coalition in Iraq is better for Iraq than Sadaam Hussein's tryanny.
It is very questionable if it is better for America.
Spending our military, foriegn clout, and intelligence resources in destroying Al Queda is what will keep America safe, not wasting it policing up Iraq. The impotent and cruel dictator of Iraq could not muster the strength to Hurt the US. Al Queda can.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
May I point out that we knew about Sadaam's humanitarian abuses for 12 years, condemned them, and he did NOTHING to alleviate world concerns?
Relatively quickly after the scandal in Abu Gharib was made known, the US has taken steps to improve conditions, and bring the perpetrators of the abuse to justice.
So . . . where do you get the idea that the US and Hussein regimes are equally reprehensible, Syn? They just don't scale.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: You can't really fight a fire with fire anymore than you can fight a war with more war...
It seems to me that you must mean something other than what this appears to say.
How else do you fight a war other than with war? Do you think we could have won WWII with poetry? With flowers? With Leggos?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I see instances of people just blindly accepting policies, like the Democrats and Republicans after 9/11.
Were they blind because they disagree with you? How do you know they were blind?
quote:I saw people get temporarily black listed for disagreeing with the government's policies back then, Dixie Chicks come to mind.
The so-called blacklisting of the Dixie Chicks represented people exercising their rights to freedom of speech and association, and businesses listening to those exercises.
quote:At this point, I don't really care about being fair. Rude, but true.
Since we're apparantly not interested in courtesy any more:
Frankly, your "I'm a tortured soul just trying to figure out why people think differently than I" facade is becoming thinner and thinner as time goes on. You start the thread with "why do people want to vote for Bush?" and in your very next post accuse people whose policies you dislike of not thinking and acting like lemmings.
Could you please either stop pretending you want to understand others, or actually make an effort to do so. I don't care which, but the pretense is painful at this point.
Dagonee
[ September 07, 2004, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Mr. Port, the jobs serving fries and McDonalds or bagging groceries are good entry level jobs. They cannot support a family. That is why they are not as good as the factory jobs that were lost.
I heard President Bush's most recent speach. His economic policy can be seen in a purely Rich/Poor light.
1)Revamping the tax code. There are hints here that such a revamping would mean moving to a sales tax. Since the poor spend more of their money on neccesities, it would mean they would be spending a bigger percentage of thier limited income. Meanwhile, the wealthiest who invest the majority of their income, and spend much of the rest outside the country, would be paying much less.
Even if you do not believe he is pushing for that change, President Bush has insisted that tax cuts should be focused on the people who pay the most. In other words, the rich will get the biggest tax cuts and the poor will get diminished services to pay for them.
Or we will just add to our national debt and some future--real--leader will have the buck stop at them.
2) Economic Opportunity Zones. Where many jobs have been lost, a series of government backed enticements will be laid out. These include some Training of Local Populace, but mostly, Tax Cuts For Corporations and Waivers From Regulations. This means that if a company closes up a good work environment, they government will pay for them to come back, and pesky things like environmental laws, OSHA safety procedures, Handicap Accesibility, and similar regulations will be waived.
If you want to work, you don't need to breath healthy air or drink clean water. If you get hurt on the job, hey, you have insurance don't you?
3) Lawsuit Reform. The idea is that companies, especially insurance companies, should not be bothered by lawsuits. Since some of these are frivolous, and others are mismanaged by lawyers who are more greedy than intelligent, the whole system must go. These changes will quite literally allow companies to get away with murder, and we will get a few grand to compensate the families of the dead.
The idea that the way to improve the American Medical System is to disallow the only way a patient can punish a bad doctor is ridiculous. This debate should not be about Doctors vs Lawyers. This debate should be about insurance companies playing both sides for fools.
Law Suits are not meant to make the victim wealthy. They are designed to punish those who victimize. So if a class action law suit only gives the victimes $10 and some coupons, that is not the point. The point is that it cost the company at fault far more than the profit they made by victimizing the great number of customers.
In other words, the type of Torte Reform President Bush is proposing is a boost to corporate America at the expense of the consumer. That's you and me and our children.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Adam and Dan, you make good points. What bothered me was referring to "working at the stupormarket", which is just plain rude to the people that do.
I know that Synestasia said she doesn't care if she's rude or not, but just because you don't care doesn't make it acceptable.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: As for sources, most would just dismiss mine as nothing more than Liberal rhetoric, but who cares?
*I* care, thank you very much. In case you didn't notice, most people here are pretty intelligent. We don't need you deciding how liberal a source is for us.
quote: This is something to think about no matter where it comes from.
What I'd be thinking about is the validity of the source. Because people who make stuff up just to rile people up are expecting that exact reaction--"I don't care about the source because the topic is so hot".
This is the journalist in me, I suppose. To me, if you don't have a reason for me to believe you, you don't have *anything*.
Ran the risk of being rude there, but I don't care.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Just a random thought: Why not place a higher tax on luxury items? The sort of items that if you are buying them, it means you have too much money. Status symbols. This wouldn't effect those who are struggling just to get by unless they were being financially irresponsible. If I were Queen....
Syn, I tend to agree with you about the war. But then, I hate war. There is a part of me that grudgingly admits that sometimes in this world we live in, war is at least *an* answer, even if it isn't the only one. But I do look at this war in Iraq and think: this isn't getting rid of any terrorists, is it? And it *is* succeeding in ticking a lot of people off at us. Isn't this creating more hate and therefore fueling more terrorism? I would think that part of fighting terrorism is acting in a way that fosters confidence in us and not hate and fear.
If we restricted our warring to specific cases of terrorism, thus increasing the confidence of the world's nations that we were only using our fearful power right now against that specific thing, they might respect what we are doing--because it would be above reproach. At least, above reasonable reproach. I'm sure those intent on criticizing still would.
But I fear that we may have used the inertia of the war on terrorism to extend to a war that is not on terrorism. While it is good to get rid of a dictator, are there not many, many other such situations? What was special about this dictator except oil access? Even if that was not our prime motivation, it sure looks that way to the observer. Also, he is gone. We succeeded. Yay. Why are we still there? Because we worry that any replacement government would be just as bad for Iraq? Then what was the point?
I also claim ignorance, not understanding because I do not keep up on the news. I'm just saying how it looks to me with what I know. I am not really expecting good answers to these questions, because I don't think there are any good answers.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why not place a higher tax on luxury items? The sort of items that if you are buying them, it means you have too much money. Status symbols. This wouldn't effect those who are struggling just to get by unless they were being financially irresponsible. If I were Queen....
I agree that necessities should be taxed less than luxeries. The problem lies in the fact that luxeries are discretionary, and therefore one easily replaces the other. So the tax-makers have to predict and stay ahead of society fads and trends, yet their actions change the fads and trends. Plus, of course, is the fact that the industries hurt by the taxes often employ many people in good manufacturing jobs.
It's a good principle that's hard to implement in practice.
Dagonee
[ September 07, 2004, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Some quick things that were special about Saddam besides access to oil:
He was routinely shooting at American planes. He appeared to have a WMD program. He was under treaty to prove to us that he didn't have a WMD program. He absolutely refused to prove to us that he didn't have such a WMD program. He was supporting terrorists (not against Americans, true)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yeah, Dag. It can only exist in the dream-world of my brain. *sigh*
Porter, my dear husband, you make some excellent points. Thank you. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
On the other hand:
He was routinely shooting at American planes--and we were routinely shooting back, doing much more damage than he was.
He appeared to have a WMD program. We appear to not have even considered that he didn't. We allowed ourselves, our intelligence community, our President, our Congress, and yes, even each of us, to be fooled by this madman. The result, the terrorists are still running around and the world's best military is stuck in the sand.
He was under treaty to prove to us that he didn't have a WMD program. But proving a negative is impossible. He was set up to fail.
He absolutely refused to prove to us that he didn't have such a WMD program. Sure, he was an idiot and a egomaniac and a jerk. He wasted the lives of his countrymen to keep his ego in tact, and we played right into his hands.
He was supporting terrorists (not against Americans, true). The amount of our effort used to crush this small supporter of terrorists was excessive, and diminished our ability to destroy the terrorists themselves, and those supporting them to a greater extent.
Terrorists are like ants. The bite and nibble at you, causing much pain, and possibly spreading disease. Stomping on them seems such a simple solution. Yet it doesn't work. Crushing their Ant hills only spreads them to another part of the yard. The only way to kill the ants is to poison them, and their food source--(Terrorist Money supply and recruitment sources).
When you stomp all you do is crush a few, and crush other, harmless or helpful bugs, who happen to be under foot. And when they see the boot smashing down on them, even the most normally harmless bug may sting or bite.
Except we are not talking bugs here. We are talking people.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Dan, if some madman stands up and screams "I have WMD's!" then it's not our position to assume that he's lying. We weren't imagining the worst, we were believing the worst, which is what he offered.
Like someone holding you up with his finger in his pocket in the shape of a gun. How smart would it be to second guess him? No, if he says he has a gun, you give him your money, or kick him in the groin, or whatever you have to do to protect yourself. You can think to yourself, "What if he's lying?" but the only way to find out for sure is to go in and see for yourself. Since he wouldn't let us do it peacefully, we did it with force.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Saddam Hussein went out of his way to make sure that the world believed (and the entire world *did* believe) that he had WMD.
It's as though the cops show up in the middle of a robbery and the suspect not only refuses to show his hands, but puts his hands in his jacket pocket as though he had a gun and is going to shoot the officers. They would be justified in shooting him dead, even if he was just being an idiot.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Adam, you don't know my position on the War in Iraq, because I'm not even sure what it is at this point, so it isn't going to help to throw North Korea up there. (I've heard it a thousand times, anyway.)
My only point was that I wouldn't call it "being fooled by a madman" because if a madman threatens you, you HAVE to assume the worst for your own protection. That's all.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The problem is that he wasn't saying, "I have WMD." He was standing up and yelling, "I DON'T HAVE WMD!!!!!!" and we responded, "You are lieing."
Sure, he acted guilty. That is our excuse. It's more like a man walks into a bank with his finger in his pocket. The security gaurd assumes its a gun and tries to frisk him. The idiot with the finger doesn't like the Security gaurd's race, or uniform, or tone of voice. The idiot doesn't like being frisked, so he does his best to hinder the security guard. Does the security gaurd have the right to shoot him?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Adam, there is no way that China would allow us to go do that in their back yard.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Dan, the security guard has the right to imprison him, and that's what we did.
Explain what happens in an airport if someone acts like they have a bomb, and won't allow the guards to check him out.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Saddam had promised to show us that he didn't have WMD. He was saying that he didn't have WMD, but refused to show us, even though he had already promised to.
Yes, we thought he was lying. So did the entire world.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dan, what if that guy going into the bank not only knew that he would be frisked when going into the bank, but had already promised to submit to such a frisk?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think Hussein wanted us to believe he had WMD.
I believed he had WMD.
Everyone believed he had WMD.
Why?
Because nobody bothered to consider the possibility that he didn't.
Because those people who did question it were ignored, while self-serving interests, mainly Iraqi refugees wanting the US help them return home, were considered as the best of unbiased sources.
Because from day one a group in the white house wanted to a quick cheap war, repaid from Iraqi oil, so they could end the expensive no-fly-zone missions.
Because Hussien was an easy target, and an easy villian.
It was a mistake. Yet it is not one that the Republicans are admitting too.
At best President Bush has said, "I had to make a decision to either trust a liar or defend this country."
That assumes these were his only options. They were not. That assumes that Iraq would have some how been able to take the weapons they didn't have and give them to the terrorists they didn't know. And that they would be able to use them to attack America.
That doesn't admit that the reason we went to war was a mistake.
That doesn't admit that he was fooled by Saddam Hussein, or by his own determination not to believe him.
I believed that Hussein had WMD. I was wrong. I will do better at checking my assumptions.
I am waiting for the Republicans to say the same.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Maybe I do care about being rude. There doesn't seem to be a way to talk about political issues WITHOUT sounding rude and impolite... I hold back so much... Sorry about the stupormarket remark. I DO work at the supermarket and I am a bit tired and bitter about working there and might just quit soon. I don't mean a remark like that to be rude towards my co-workers... I'm tired and bitter about everything these days, especially politics. And I'm angry. Very angry and under educated about these issues... But holding back just isn't going to solve anything...
quote: Since we're apparantly not interested in courtesy any more:
Frankly, your "I'm a tortured soul just trying to figure out why people think differently than I" facade is becoming thinner and thinner as time goes on. You start the thread with "why do people want to vote for Bush?" and in your very next post accuse people whose policies you dislike of not thinking and acting like lemmings.
Could you please either stop pretending you want to understand others, or actually make an effort to do so. I don't care which, but the pretense is painful at this point.
*Sigh* I am coming off like that, but I honestly don't want to... Perhaps I am only looking from the left side, I don't know. I really don't... But I do genuinely want to know why. I don't know everything, after all.. I know very little which is why I keep doing research every day to learn more...
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Just a random thought: Why not place a higher tax on luxury items? The sort of items that if you are buying them, it means you have too much money. Status symbols. This wouldn't effect those who are struggling just to get by unless they were being financially irresponsible. If I were Queen....
It's been done before, a luxury tax on yachts. The problem is, nobody particularly needs yachts -- the industry almost went bankrupt because nobody bought yachts at the inflated price.
I'm against sales tax in general, unless there's a particular reason to stem inflation (and there are smarter ways to go about it). But if we're going to tax consumer goods, we need to tax those which consumers aren't going to stop buying -- food, drugs, etc. The problem with that is consumers won't stop buying those goods because they need them, and raising drug prices is damn cruel. Raising food prices, not quite so cruel at the current rate given how cheap food is, but doing so would in turn hurt the restaurant industry (which already has thin profit margins), which would stop expanding, stop hiring, and more people would wind up screwed over. Sales tax just isn't a good idea.
Income tax has many of the same drawbacks -- if we tax too much, for example, people may not buy that yacht -- but it's less specifically harmful to any particular industry, and ensures investment in our economy (as opposed to, say, investment in foreign goods to sell here, increasing our trade defecit). Taxes on the poor and middle-class are fairly useless, given they're already here and are almost guaranteed to invest in this economy -- but taxing the rich ensures that they can still afford an incredibly privileged life in this country while some of their vast profits are drawn off to support roads and education in this country, ensuring perpetuation of an educated, capable workforce to innovate new industries while older ones are sent overseas to countries who can perform them for much cheaper than we can here, which, while it bleeds off jobs from this country, makes consumer goods cheaper for everyone.
The problem with taxing the rich is that they may simply decide to move somewhere else. There's nothing in particular to tie down the extremely wealthy to this country, and if potential benefits outweigh the cost of paying taxes, they'll simply move offshore -- like Halliburton, for example, with headquarters in, I believe, Bermuda. The extremely wealthy and their corporations can escape from paying taxes fairly easily, given how much influence they have in the federal government, which only makes the taxes heavier on the wealthy few that remain in this country.
Which is regrettable, but taxing the rich is still a smarter policy than taxing the middle class. If I give everyone $5, I'm practically guaranteed that money will be spent quickly, often, and domestically. If I give myself $5,000,000, I have no particular reason to invest any of it aside from basic needs like rent or food. And given how large profit margins are when products are made in other countries and sold to our wealthier economy, if I have any sense at all I'll invest in overseas ventures and become even wealthier. This bleeds money from our economy, if it makes other economies wealther -- China, for example, is becoming a ridiculously powerful economic force precisely because they permit a free(esque) market and encourage investment in their country. Most economists I've read predict China will overtake us within the century, if not long before half that.
And, frankly, when that happens, we're rather screwed. War against China isn't an option. Not only for its incredibly powerful air force or nuclear weapons or giant population, but because much of our industrial infrastructure is located in that country. We couldn't go to war against China today, much less fifty years from now -- it would break the leading American corporations' capacity to produce their goods.
In the economic ideal we'd have no taxes, which would ensure a free market and provide incentive to invest in the American market. We'd still need to pay for security and some oversight (or so I believe -- a free market is impossible if we don't have an honest one), but we wouldn't take taxes to pay for education, welfare, social security, any social programs. Some few of these expenses can be justified by their value to our economy -- roads, for example, allow workers to arrive at their jobs. Education, as I said, ensures a future educated workforce for more complex jobs. But most social programs would be written off as unsound investments -- welfare doesn't help Halliburton any. A cheaper way to handle these problems may be to hire more police officers, so the devastatingly poor don't commit crime and scare off potential investment.
The problem here is, while the country may be richer, its citizenry are not. If you were in a bar with Bill Gates, you'd be a member of the richest bar in the world -- but that doesn't mean you're any richer or any better off. This kind of laissez faire economics almost always winds up concentrating wealth in the absolute elite. As it has here, in fact. In a free-market ideal, this wouldn't happen (companies would slash their profits to zero to lower their prices in the name of competition), but we don't actually live in a free-market ideal -- we don't have perfect competition, and we grow further and further away from that ideal as companies merge and competition decreases.
As it stands, though, we don't need to roll back all taxes. We're still -- or were -- one of the best investments in the world. Our economy was thought trustworthy, before Enron and etceteras (which is why Bush should have promised a full investigation and the harshest penalties against Ken Lay and the other dishonest CEOs), our borders were thought safe (before Bush incited the entire Muslim world into a rage against us), and our economy seemed to be growing (until, for example, computer companies outsourced their labor to India). We're still strong, but if we don't find a new industry only we can perform (biomedical research, drug development, weapons systems are a few of our only remaining strengths), there's no reason to believe our economy will do anything but decline, and no particular reason to invest in our country or, while we're still inflated relative to the rest of the world, buy our goods.
Right now the dollar is actually weaker than the euro, which gives us an advantage in trade -- we can sell our goods there for cheaper than they can sell their goods here, assuming they both cost the same in real value -- but that hasn't worked to our advantage yet. It probably won't for as long as the continent's this angry with our country.
Damn I ramble. So, yeah, taxing luxury goods is fairly pointless, given there's no pressing need for anyone to actually buy them, and if they're bought we're at least assured money is being traded to lower classes, which are more likely to invest them domestically, and we know that money's not going to foreign countries to strengthen their economies against ours.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Syn -- I didn't know that you worked at a supermarket. Sorry for jumping on you like that. You comment sounded verry snobby to me, but I now see that I was wrong.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Everyone believed he had WMD.
Why?
Because nobody bothered to consider the possibility that he didn't.
I'm willing to consider the possibility that he didn't. I'm also considering the possibility that he did, and he's got them somewhere else.
But if someone can give me a really convincing reason to believe that Saddam would gain somehow from leading us to believe he had WMD's, or from refusing to let us peacefully look for them, then I might believe there would be a reason for him to act that way without said WMD's.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Is ok. I should not sound so snide, but I am really tired of working there. I do agree with your point of view, Dan_Raven. It seems as if Bush was wrong, but he refuses to admit it.. It's ok to be stubborn if only your life depends on it, but when it's thousands of troops and millions of Americans...
As for the economy, I don't know much about it, but it seems more logical to NOT give so much support and tax breaks to billionaires...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Lalo -- you are saying that there's no magic bullet?
Crap, I hate it when that happens. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Lalo, that was one of the best political posts I've ever read. Thank you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
PSI -- many people believe now that he didn't have WMD. The point is that back then, everybody believed he did.
I think that Saddam was betting that we wouldn't call his bluff. He didn't have anything, but he was banking that we would back down and let him have his way.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
His way= The way he was running his country?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Part if his way = not fulfilling his end of the surrender treaty signed in the first Gulf War.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Fascinating discussion. And I agree that the Bush administration should apologize--not necessarily because it was their fault, but just out of good form and to show others that they are trying to do what is right. Being able to apologize and admit mistake is admirable, mature behavior. It makes you vulnerable, and it shows willingness to *be* vulnerable in the light of what happened. Now, there appears to have been some apology, but perhaps not enough or not clear enough.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There's no way that Bush will apologize, at least not until after the election. Both sides, to their shame, have shown an eagerness to jump all over any potential negative sound bites made by the other side.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Syn -- I didn't know that you worked at a supermarket. Sorry for jumping on you like that. You comment sounded verry snobby to me, but I now see that I was wrong.
For what it's worth, mph, I think Syn struggled to find a job to the point of almost being kicked out of her apartment. The locks to her home may not have actually been changed on her -- can't remember -- but this was certainly threatened.
She went through a period of posting in extreme distress because working at the supermarket seemed to sap her physical and creative energy to the point where she couldn't write, and it was writing that she most loved.
I say this only for context. I understand your frustration at "stupormarket." I'm taking a lot of what Syn says in light of what I know about her recent unhappiness, though, and it's probably why more people didn't press her on that point (I think).
[ September 07, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Been writing in my blog about it a lot... I'mt tired of working there. I don't get enough hours and they have had me on bagging for nearly a year without training me to do anything else... I am a bit annoyed with myself for complaining about it so much... But, soon I will try to submit some old stuff I wrote...
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Aw, shucks, baby.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Reason why I call the supermarket is the "Stupormarket" Because after just one hour I feel like a zombie. It's so boring there I feel like I am going ti fall asleep...
Several questions I thought of at work- Do they have soldiers to protect foreign civilians from insurgents? Why isn't the US helping the people of Sudan? And are we really winning the war on Iraq?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: are we really winning the war on Iraq?
Who else do you think might be winning?
Posted by Fiber (Member # 6836) on :
quote: posted September 07, 2004 01:15 PM Fascinating discussion. And I agree that the Bush administration should apologize--not necessarily because it was their fault, but just out of good form and to show others that they are trying to do what is right. Being able to apologize and admit mistake is admirable, mature behavior. It makes you vulnerable, and it shows willingness to *be* vulnerable in the light of what happened. Now, there appears to have been some apology, but perhaps not enough or not clear enough.
Bev, you raise a good point. (central point, in my books)
fib
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Who else do you think might be winning?"
Hm. This is an interesting concept. Is it your opinion that all wars have winners?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Good point.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Perhaps one worth starting a new thread over... ?
Hobbes Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't understand how a people win wars.. (I told you, I'm ignorant.) Is it won when one group gives up? Can you say you've won the war if a handful of people are still fighting? Or is war simply never ending despite all the white flags and surrenders?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Perhaps we should start a new thread on it...
Syn, if you're really interested in figuring out how so many people can believe something that seems so wrong to you, my first advice is to change what you read. As I recall, you read almost exclusivley liberal to extremely liberal books. I'm not going to say there's anaything necessarily wrong with this, but you will never understand why Bush supports... well... support Bush by reading that, you'll have to read books by actual Bush supporters, not ones tearing him down.
Hobbes Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
quote:I think Hussein wanted us to believe he had WMD.
I believed he had WMD.
Everyone believed he had WMD.
My sister's boyfriend (partner? been together 8 years) works for the government. His job? To analyze the resources and imports of a country to determine whether they have the capabilities of various types of warfare. Really.
His response? "The Bush administration Lied Lied Lied." I'm sure it's confidential to go into specifics, but he is VERY opinionated about this point. He was there, on the inside.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Funny, I've heard from similarly situated sources that they were "almost positive."
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I did say I have tried to read conservative books. I tried to read 2 books by Hannity but he was driving me insane. Every three seconds he had to use terms like "evil". I tried to read Coulter as well, and her style also drove me nuts. Recommend some conservative books that won't drive me crazy. I simply hate whow they basically blaim the break down of society entirely on liberals and gays and act as if no matter what America does it's right...
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Not the person to do that, I don't read political books, either side of the spectrum (I'm never that interested in someone's opinion when I have to pay them for it ) but I'm sure some people here have ideas. OSC often mentions books in his poltical column, and he's normally pretty good about declaring bias (for isntance, the latest one he mentioned sounded too conservitive for you to get through, but I recall a Ben Stein book that sounded conservitive, but still moderate enough you might at least be able to read it?) Anyways, yes, best of luck.
Hobbes Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its pretty clear the Bush administration was fabricating reasons to go into Iraq. The problem is proving they knew it. The implied Bush counter to the numerous complaints from former administration members seems to be that people assumed the Bush administration only wanted to hear about Iraq, that was all the Bush administration knew about. This is of course in contradiction to various statements that people (such as the terrorist czar) kept trying to tell them about Al Quaeda and were never afforded time to speak. So I think its pretty clear that the Bush administration at best had a one track mind, largely ignoring a known international threat in favor of a country that at best was trying to develop some WMD (which many countries have) by the available intelligence, and has no particular history of supplying WMD to terrorists. Now, either they were just so intent on their goal they were ignoring evidence (which is a pretty darn big failing on its own), or they were suppressing evidence.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
See Syn, I can't read Micheal Moore for the exact same reason, and I'm a liberal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Are you a liberal like OSC is a liberal, or a real one? Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Recommend some conservative books
Most conservative books get their ideas from many of the same think tanks.
Many of these think tanks have links on the web. I recommend going to them and seeing what they have to say, because the way they present their ideas is much more fact based to make their point, and not ad hominem based (usually).
Off the top of my head, the conservative think tanks that I can think of are:
the rand foundation
Cato
the heritage foundation
the family research council
remember to always take everything that has never been subjected to any more than internal scrutiny(no peer review) with a huge grain of salt.
The national review online is also usually not very inflammatory and is another source for many of the ideas and thoughts of many of the on air ideologues.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Synth, a war is won only after those who fought in it, or were effected by it, forgive the other side, letting thier anger and hate go away.
Its much like elections.
That is why there are still some who are fighting the 2000 election still.
And some Americans who are still fighting the Civil War.
Of course we can always take our cue's from Sudan, and say a war is only won after you kill all the men, rape all the women, and slaughter all the children. Genocide--that's the answer. It worked for Rome via Carthage. It worked with Isrealites via Canannites. It will work today.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't know, Dan. I think it can safely be said that the North won the Civil War.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) but I'm sure some people here have ideas. OSC often mentions books in his poltical column, and he's normally pretty good about declaring bias (for isntance, the latest one he mentioned sounded too conservitive for you to get through, but I recall a Ben Stein book that sounded conservitive, but still moderate enough you might at least be able to read it?) Anyways, yes, best of luck. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)