posted
So you don't like Bush either way, but that doesn't tell us how history will judge him on the assumption that history is non-partisan.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that history will show how Bush helped set back the advances made in the USA by at least 20 years, and helped establish us as the leader among the other third world countries.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Opium and heroin production has risen. I support that.
Bush's second victory may well lead to the destruction of the Democratic party, and the rise of another major party.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier, I know it's a little late...but I keep hearing the idea that "you can't roll back progress".
The fact is, I only hear this idea from people who are, or lately were, in the driver's seat. Their programs are always progress, and their opponents are always opponents of progress. I'm sure Shalmanezer of Assyria gazed at the bodies of his decapitated, mutilated foes and thought, "Neat! You just can't stop progress, can you?"
History does not go in any specific direction. It goes where the people with power decide it should go. (Yes, large numbers are a form of power--but not the only form.) Whether you consider the direction it actually goes in progress depends on which side you're on.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Innocent is not the correct word. Afghanistan was not guilty of anything worthy of invasion. Refusing to turn over someone in your country is a right even the U.S. has claimed to have.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afhganistan was bubbling over with human rights violations. There is no great crime in invading the country. But since we didn't have a clear objective, we invaded, now we have Osama bin Laden sitting on 1000 pounds of heroin.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: but Kerry could not offer me a smaller one, and promised to raise my taxes.
In the town hall style debate (I believe it was the second one) Kerry promised he would not raise taxes for people making under $200,000 a year.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if you were president you would let other countries harbor terrorists all they want no matter how many Americans die.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was the one where he assumed that nobody in the audience made over 200,000. I don't make same assumption about jeniwren. Though, for the record, she did at one point in time assume that I was short and fat. Apparently, I use too many words with lower case ooos in them.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people do make over $200,000 a year and they aren't the people who need to be taxed more. Its the people who are making the multi-millions a year who are the "problems." Furthermore, that was only income tax. There's still Social Security, capital gains, death tax, gas tax, etc.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: History does not go in any specific direction. It goes where the people with power decide it should go. (Yes, large numbers are a form of power--but not the only form.) Whether you consider the direction it actually goes in progress depends on which side you're on.
I think you are mistaken here.
American and European history, at least in the last few hundred years, have most certainly moved from the direction of less equal rights toward more equal rights.
The removal of the feudal system and aristocracy... The change from kingdoms to democracy... The abolition of identured servatude and slavery... The right of freedom of religion... The right of blacks to vote... The right of women to vote... The ammendments granting equal rights to blacks and women... The gradual decline of socially acceptable racism and sexism in society... The gradual acceptance in American media toward gays, recent notable shows include MTV's the Real World, Will and Grace, and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy... The right to gay marriage in Canada, Norway, Sweden, and Massachusettes...
Seems pretty directional to me. Is it wrong to look at my list and see gay marriage as inevitable?
posted
I realize that jeniwren could make over $200,000 a year and debated adding a question asking whether she did or not that post, but I decided it sounded too rude. Jeniwren, if you make over $200,000 please ignore my post.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The estate tax - or the more emotively titled "death tax" - only effects a small number of estates. Something like 80% of estate tax is paid by 1% of estates. Cutting the estate tax is a blatant effort to support dynastic wealth rather than its redistribution.
The American taxation system probably needs a significant, ground-up overhaul to drastically reduce the number of separate taxes and the way in which they are collected. This might make debate regarding taxation rates much more feasible and it would certainly support the end-user of the system in being able to determine their tax status in a number of ways. In Australia, individuals are subject to a single Pay As You Go income tax, capital gains tax, Medicare Levy, Higher Education Contribution Scheme (low interest, education loans) repayments and fringe benefits tax. There are some other things that apply in particular circumstances but not to the broader public. For many Australians, PAYG income tax and the Medicare Levy are the only components of their taxation payments.
As a result, changes to tax rates occur mainly in the the adjustment of marginal tax rates within PAYG or the thresholds at which rates apply.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I know no one wants to hear this but Bush will most likely be remembered for kick starting quite a few reforms in the United Statest military. The armed forces are slowly but surely finally coming out of the cold war mentality and gearing up for something closer to the colonial conflicts of the past. Making the military faster ( quicker response time) as speed is more critical today than ever before if nothing else but political pressure and our zap at you media. To me its insane how hard it must be to run a military for the United States at the higher levels simply because of the media. Though that has its good and bad effects.
That and I think, hope, that someone reinstates the draft in the United States. Now I know everyone hates this etc. but how do you think you get a morally and ethically fit military? In my profession its the persons who want to kill who enjoy the idea of closing with the "Enemy" and destroying him that continue to do that job. Believe me its not just all out of patriotism I've met some pretty sadistic dudes but at the very least most of them are restrained through duty and higher command, but not entirely. The only thing is that though we would have a more ethically fit military and one less likely to cause problems in the future, it would be one a little less proffesional and though not less effective in battle ( more numbers) it would take more casualties. But its time for America to come to the terms that fire power does not balance out sheer violence of action. Something our military is still lacking.
Now everyone gives Bush a hard time for the economy etc., well it was already on the way down when he took office, how is he at fault with that. Not to mention Sept 11ths effect on our economy ( it sucks to be an airline at least), will we blame that on Bush. That and Afghanistan not being 100% in hand at the moment ( not to mention Iraq as well) is something I blame on the "humanity" of the United States. Americans don't like a thousand Americans dying in over a year of fighting ( an honestly low number) how would they react to a thousand in a month, or even 6 months?
That and you make mention of Americas movement to more liberal values, well this is true to a point, but also notice that most of that value change is happening in Urban areas ( which also btw happened to favor Kerry) not in the Rural. Which btw is not the kind of social split you want in a society ( note the political differences between the Industrial north and the Agricultural south) That and you say that values/social progress is always forward, well thats rather wrong and silly. Remember that homosexuality as a whole was much more accepted in certain "ancient" cultures than our own. This and I believe its amazing how big of a deal we make over certain smaller social issues and miss rather large ones, or at the very least social diseases which are taking hold in America. Personally I don't think anyone is going to truely crack down and attempt to make homosexual sex illegal, most likely someone somewhere will find a political compromise that allows there to be homosexual couples, not "married." Especially since marriage itself though a legal concept is generally seen as a religous rite, especially by the religious right .
Though I think what Bush will be remembered for best (or at least be infamous for) is his inability to express his views and plans in such a manner to make everyone understand. Instead he goes with a gungho approach I would attempt with my fireteam. Its not very tactful to go on TV and say the equivalent of "gotta kill um all" on television. Though its not what he honestly means its what comes out of it all. He has never really compromised on any of the issues and plans as he said he would. He has in the sense been a poor leader, why do I say that? Well what kind of leader can only have half his "led" follow him. A good leader, an excellent president may not be liked by all, but at least respected. The sad thing is many of his actions could be seen in the highest light, but its the way he divulges them.. that is well more than a bit lacking.
Overall I Think Bush will be seen as a poor communicator who may have made correct choices, but in his implementation and explanation of those choices failed to take them to their fullest.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Xavier, but your list is itself prejudicial. You list the trends that favor your position, and ignore things like the growing concentration of wealth. You also (understandably) ignore things like the insistence that fetuses have no right even to stay alive because you do not agree with the position behind them. In effect, you are picking and choosing issues that you think are "progress" and that are being successfully pushed.
Secondly, a couple of hundred years is very little compared with several thousand years. The trend you speak of is real, but it could also begin to reverse itself tomorrow. Perhaps it already has.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Fox. What are they feeding you? Yeah, look, when I disagreed with him, he was probably 18, is it so hard to be believe that he-- or I-- have changed.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I grew up ::laughs::, if you talk to the people who know me very well I've changed a great deal of late.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, Xavier, but your list is itself prejudicial. You list the trends that favor your position, and ignore things like the growing concentration of wealth. You also (understandably) ignore things like the insistence that fetuses have no right even to stay alive because you do not agree with the position behind them.
Yes, I did only list events which I felt showed the trend. I have a position to defend after all .
I'm not sure how the growing concentration of wealth affects my trend toward freedom. Could you explain please?
As far as abortion rights are concerned, I think that could be included as another step in favor of freedom if phrased in the direction of women's rights, but against the trend if put in the direction of fetal rights. So whether it supports the trend is a matter of interpretation.
There are others that might more show my list's bias, such as not including the restrictions on the rights to use drugs. Thats certainly trending towards less freedom.
But besides arguing my statement that its inevitable, how do you personally feel Mabus? Do you think that the conservatives can keep homosexual marriage illegal forever? I also wonder if you believe that someone would have been wrong for thinking that an end to slavery was inevitable prior to the civil war, or that womens sufferage was inevitable pre-WWI?
Edit: And in regards to how long my timeline is, you could say it starts at about the middle of the Medieval Ages, which is a considerable time period to see trends.
posted
I still think Bush's speaking problems are a ruse to avoid questions he would preferred unanswered and to keep his opposition underestimating him. He probably took this lesson from Eisenhower.
Personally, I agree that the country is slowly moving toward more gay rights, but I don't think it will affect Bush's legacy. Do most people think of Woodrow Wilson as a racist or as the man who won WWI and set out the Fourteen Points?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier, the increase in concentration of wealth gives more power to the already wealthy, since they can spend whatever amount they like to get their way in courts or in the legislature. If they are all of good will, that is not inherently a problem--but that is not something I would bet two cents on, let alone my life.
As for your second question...it really is a matter of time. By the time the Civil War started, the end of slavery may have been inevitable--but I am not sure. Was it inevitable in 1800? I doubt it. At some point it probably became inevitable, but I do not know when that was. And there is no guarantee that what has happened cannot be reversed--even today it is theoretically possible we will revert to having some form of slavery be acceptable. I honestly do not know if homosexuals will gain the right to marry--certainly they already have in some places--or how long it will last if they do. That goes right along with my belief that nothing is inevitable.
It is somewhat like Hari Seldon's statement in the Foundation trilogy--the fall of the Empire is not inevitable if enough people can be convinced to act in a way that will keep it from falling. How do you convince them? That's the question....and there is no clear answer.
posted
That and remember progress is always relative, I'm sure that men from the past would be rather alarmed and disturbed by our "progress." That and I believe gay rights to be an inflated issue, it is not of the same level as womens rights and slavery. Why do I say that? Because the fact is the African didn't have much choice about slavery, he couldn't just paint himself white or make himself European and be free in America. A woman couldn't just make herself a man and enjoy the same freedoms. The fact is that homosexuality is much more of a choice, I know more than a few gay persons who don't let it interfere with their life. They work the jobs they want to, live with the persons they want to and thats it. No one is saying ( or ever implemented in law) that homosexuals couldn't vote, hold office, or own land. Sure its never exactly been socially popular, but government shouldn't regulate what society believes, simply what they are allowed to do. You can't stop people from hating a group, but you can stop them to a point from discrimenating and lynching them.
That and I believe the detention of Japanese Americans in WWII was a step back, not to mention the social outlash against Germans during WWI. The social outlash against former slaves after the Civil war that "set them free." The rather unequal use of African Americans ( not to mention "lower classes") in Vietnam through the drafts ins and outs. The continual buildup of wealth in the upper classes and loss of it at the bottom. Americas problems with religious tolerance when you aren't a protestant christian. And on top of that the problem of tolerance that atheists seem to have in our nation. Yes our nation has made many great changes in the past hundred years plus. Its generally hard for society like America to go "backwards" for a great length of time.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if you were president you would let other countries harbor terrorists all they want no matter how many Americans die.
Me? No. I just would use more valid tactics to take out those terrorists than all-out invasion of sovereign nations.
Or do you think France should get to tell America who we have to arrest and hand over to them? If France can't tell us that, we can't tell Afghanistan that.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we were harboring people who had murdered thousands of French citizens they would certainly have the right to invade us.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would bet that Germany and some of the South American countries are harboring (or were, since they're now dying off from old age) known Nazi war criminals. People who have caused the deaths of thousands, as it were.
Would it be OK for us to invade Germany if they refused to hand over these known war criminals? Brazil? Argentina? Madagascar?
(I really don't think that any Nazis are hiding out in Madagascar. I just like saying "Madagascar.")
posted
If it was clear that the nazi party was committed to continuing its mission of genocide, then yes, we'd be completely right to invade the country that harbored its leadership.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
If it IS true that other countries have a right to overrule by force our decisions on whom to give up to the authorities, then what reason do we have for staying out of the World Court? Are we suggesting that, rather than use law to determine which countries have to hand over whom to which countries, we use a policy of might-makes-right instead?
quote: Xavier, the increase in concentration of wealth gives more power to the already wealthy, since they can spend whatever amount they like to get their way in courts or in the legislature. If they are all of good will, that is not inherently a problem--but that is not something I would bet two cents on, let alone my life.
How is that a change from how it always was? There have always been the rich and powerful. They used to be much more powerful then they are today.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The countries that harbor terrorists like bin Laden don't abide by World Court rulings. That and the World Court is a bunch of BS if you look at some of the rulings they've made against Israelrecently. Nazi Germany didn't listen to the League of Nations either so why would we expect a similar nation to listen to the World Court? Countries that Germany, Brazil, and Argentina aren't intentionally harboring Nazis anymore than the U.S. currently harboring Nazis and when Israel abducted Aldolf Eichman from Argentina that was perfectly fine to me.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you agree that if we ignore their "BS" and don't hand over the war criminals they demand, they have a right to invade us, conquer us, and install their own style of government?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we were harboring people who murdered thousands of their citizens and we refused to turn them over (as the Taliban did) then they would be justified in invading us.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Progress can indeed be undone. Just look at the reemergence of defacto segregation over the last twenty to twenty-four years.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The interim Iraqi government has just demanded that we hand over George W. Bush as a (possibly) genocidal war criminal. His unilateral war declared on Iraq has caused the deaths of over 100,000 civilians.
Do we turn him over? Is it OK if they invade us?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Progress can indeed be undone. Just look at the reemergence of defacto segregation over the last twenty to twenty-four years.
Or American women losing the right to vote in the late 18th century. Or the economic collapse of the Dutch Mercantilistic society. Or the history of the civil rights movement, the Reconstruction efforts, or the Irish Free State following the respective assasinations of Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and Michael Collins. Why not throw in the fall of the Roman Empire too?
Progress is neither inevitible nor free. It needs people working to support it.
Much of American social progress rests on our fat stomaches. I can't source the quote "Civilization is only three meals away from barbarism" (I'd be grateful is someone could), but this is more true for contemporary America that for nearly any other place and time. Ray Bradbury wrote a short story once about what would happen to this country if all the televisions stopped working. Could you imagine the chaos that would result from such a realistically unimportant thing?
posted
Then you might as well claim that Germany should bd justified to invade the US for killing its citizens during WWII. If you're unwilling to use reason or common sense I don't see the point of having a discussion. The US engaged in a war that was approved by the UN Security Council. Osama bin Laden is a terrorist and by harboring him, the Taliban became culpable for his actions as they protected him and allowed him to continue his attacks.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may have goten caught up in the rhetoric--I meant my previous post to point towards Iraq more than towards Afghanistan
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. 
