Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 121 to 133 of 133

Thread: The Presidential Election

  1. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
    Roll this one around in your skull:

    Black and white thinking leads one to lose sight of the fact that it's not only Republicans who are rich and Democrats who are poor. So when Republicans' tax policies shift the burden from higher to lower income groups, rich Democrats benefit and poor Republicans suffer.

    I am certain that I have a much higher income and more wealth than you. The Bush tax cuts don't hurt me at all. In fact, I would really benefit if Bush would just eliminate the capital gains tax. Of course, given the deficit and impending SS shortfall, new sources of revenue and/or cuts in government spending would have to be found. Where do you think the Republicans are going to place that burden? Not just on middle and low income Democrats, but on loyal Republicans like you.

    Of course, I didn't pull the lever for Bush because my own economic well being is not my only criteria for choosing a candidate. I don't think it is fair that I should do better by stepping on someone less fortunate than me, as I expect the same from someone more fortunate.

    So I hope you are happy with our "moral" president, because you are the one who is going to be asked to refund SS while I am drawing money out.

    P.T. Barnum was right.
    You're right. It is not only republicans who are rich and democrats who are poor. It is never that clear cut. It is also not only white people who are rich and black people who are poor. That is why when liberalism on the supreme court decided affirmative action was a good policy, rich african americans benefitted and poor caucasians suffered. For a policy that was designed to help the disenfranchised and end discrimination you would think it would not include racial biases but only be based on wealth and income levels. I know this is a completely different topic, but since you are on the topic of rich and poor, and politics, I thought i'd bring it up. Also, maybe pulling the lever for a candidate who supports real equality and doesn't put one group ahead of another because of their race is another criteria to choose from. (You said: I don't think it is fair that I should do better by stepping on someone less fortunate than me, as I expect the same from someone more fortunate.) I agree 100%. Therefore why is it ok when democrats support race-based affirmative action? there are rich minorities and poor caucasians. Why should anyone get to step on anyone else? If you are really concerned about fairness and equality, I must ask you: Do you support affirmative action as it is and as most democrats want to keep it, or do you support a change in it to make it benefit all poor/disenfranchised people, not just minorities?

    As for social security, President Bush has a plan where people can put it into the stock market and earn much more than they are getting now. How do you feel about that? And as the baby boomers are getting older and people are living longer how else do you think social security can be saved?

  2. #122

    Default

    Oh, by the way, when you Said "Barnum was right" did you mean his alleged quote "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute"? That was actually not his quote, look:

    http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

    An excerpt:

    "Barnum is also affiliated with the famous quote "There's a sucker born every minute." History, unfortunately, has misdirected this quotation. Barnum never did say it. Actually, it was said by his competitor. Here's the incredible story."

  3. #123

    Default

    I am not going to debate particular issues with you. I tried that many months ago, and it was pointless. I don't care if you are insulted by this or not, but in my opinion, you are confused on many issues. Stay that way or not, it's your life, I don't care.

    I only responded to you to address your "all of you dissappointed liberals"(sic) remark. The fact of the matter is, I (a Democrat) will fare much better under Republican policy than you ( a Republican) will. The GOP are masters at getting their less-than-rich constituency to happily vote for policies that will impact them negatively. The issue 16 years ago was Willie Horton and crime. Crime is no longer a hot button, so the issue this time was the vague morality. I guess you think the next issue to distract the suckers is affirmative action.

    Your idea for SS was born during the market run-up in the 90s. Any experienced investor will tell you it's not as easy as "put it in the stock market and make more money." People also lose money in the market. Bush knows this. He is lying. All this does is relieve the government of obligation.

    Good luck. You'll need it.

  4. #124
    Banned Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    8,113

    Default

    I thought this was pretty good....


    Is That What You Said, America?

    Kara Swanson, author of "I'll Carry the Fork! - Recovering a Life After Brain Injury", currently cares for her stroke-injured father while continuing to cope with her own permanent injuries from an automobile accident caused by an uninsured driver.


    Is That What You Said, America?

    Is that what you said, America? That it's OK for our troops to be fighting with sub-par and unsafe gear. That you don't mind the troops' families actually spending personal money at home to pay for and ship bullet proof vests, night goggles and radios to their sons and daughters overseas because our government hasn't given them the right equipment to fight. That the humvees aren't protected on the bottom from land mines. That the U.S. is hurriedly sending "support kits" of armor for the sides because we sent our kids over there without right and safe vehicles. Is that what you said, America? Because that's what I heard.

    Is that what you said, America ? That it's OK that we've lost more jobs with this president than any other in 75 years. That the jobs he's replaced
    average $ 9,000 less per year. That it's OK our deficit has more zeroes than we can possibly fathom. That it's OK we have been trained to celebrate when gas comes DOWN to $2.02 a gallon. That it's OK my
    Dad, myself and millions other older and disabled folks routinely choose between meds and meals. Between meds and utilities. That it's OK we haven't opened the prescription wars with Canada in order to bring down prescription prices. That it's OK when Medicare costs are greater than their minimal raises. That it's OK when countless families are already
    scrambling to pay outrageous heating costs in early November. Is that what you said, America? Because that's what I heard.

    Is that what you said, America ? That it's OK if gays and lesbians lay down their lives in the war on terror, as long as they don't come out of the closet. That it's OK for them to work around the clock against terrorists and drug lords and dangerous gangs. That it's OK for them to save your lives as surgeons, police officers and firemen and women but it's not OK
    to have committed relationships. Is that what you said? Beyond the states banning gay marriage, eight states banned civil unions for gays and lesbians. Is that what you said, America? That gays and lesbians can pay taxes and work jobs and pull their load and contribute to the economy and suffer every loss as a normal American except they cannot celebrate a civil
    union? That they are first-class citizens right up until they fall in love. Is that what you said, America? Because that's what I heard.

    Is that what you said, America? That it doesn't matter if the world considers us a laughing stock. That it doesn't matter if the terrorists themselves have said George Bush makes their recruiting easier because he is so hated. That it's OK we've alienated all the world powers. That it's OK that we don't have secured ports and borders at home. That it's OK we
    were lied to about going into Iraq. That it's OK that more than a thousand soldiers have died. That it's OK we are extending tours of duty for soldiers who have already done their duty and who have chosen to leave
    the service. That it's OK we had the world's sympathy and support after 9-11 and have turned it into ridicule and scorn. Is that what you said, America ? Because that's what I heard.


    Is that what you said, America? That if your daughter is raped and gets pregnant because of it, that she should have that baby. That, if your niece is the victim of incest and is carrying her father's or uncle's baby, that she should not abort it. That if your wife is raped and is pregnant because of it, that you are going to welcome her bastard child. That the decision should be made by politicians and not by the woman whose body has been brutalized. Is that what you said, America? Because that's what I heard.

    That's what I heard, America. I heard you loud and clear when you said that our situation in every facet of our lives is just fine with you. That Bush did such a great job that he deserves another four years to continue this path. That you take hatred and call it morality. That you take care of the ones who already are well and well off and leave the rest to themselves. That you choose dismal and deceitful and dangerous over different.

    That's what I heard, America. Sadly, that's what I heard.

    -Kara Swanson

  5. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp
    I am not going to debate particular issues with you. I tried that many months ago, and it was pointless. I don't care if you are insulted by this or not, but in my opinion, you are confused on many issues. Stay that way or not, it's your life, I don't care.

    I only responded to you to address your "all of you dissappointed liberals"(sic) remark. The fact of the matter is, I (a Democrat) will fare much better under Republican policy than you ( a Republican) will. The GOP are masters at getting their less-than-rich constituency to happily vote for policies that will impact them negatively. The issue 16 years ago was Willie Horton and crime. Crime is no longer a hot button, so the issue this time was the vague morality. I guess you think the next issue to distract the suckers is affirmative action.

    Your idea for SS was born during the market run-up in the 90s. Any experienced investor will tell you it's not as easy as "put it in the stock market and make more money." People also lose money in the market. Bush knows this. He is lying. All this does is relieve the government of obligation.

    Good luck. You'll need it.
    LOL. :lol: I'm sorry but you are missing the point. I didn't say you wouldn't fare well under the Bush administration. I'm sure you will fare well under his four more years (like all americans)- sure probably even better than I will since you seem to have a good amount of money. I just said the "liberals are dissapointed". Is that not true? Are you trying to debate with me that liberals are not dissapointed that Bush has four more years in office?

    I don't believe I said "liberals in America will be negatively affected by Bush in office for 4 more years", I believe I said "The liberals are dissapointed". Find me a liberal American who is glad bush won re-election and ill give you a prize. And dont find one who is glad Bush won so that "in four years people will see how horrible he made america." I'm asking to see one liberal in America who actually wants to see bush in office again. The liberals are dissapointed over the outcome of the election - is that not true?

    With the stock market thing, obviously people lose money in it too. My first priority right now is not social security, mainly becuase of more current problems facing us like terrorism and war, so I do not know much about Bush's social security plan. However, isn't it true that he gives people the option to invest in the stockmarket or get SS the traditional way? Maybe it's not true, but I thought I heard it on a news program at one time or another.

  6. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrooklynRider
    I thought this was pretty good....


    Is That What You Said, America?

    Kara Swanson, author of "I'll Carry the Fork! - Recovering a Life After Brain Injury", currently cares for her stroke-injured father while continuing to cope with her own permanent injuries from an automobile accident caused by an uninsured driver.


    Is That What You Said, America?

    Is that what you said, America? That it's OK for our troops to be fighting with sub-par and unsafe gear. That you don't mind the troops' families actually spending personal money at home to pay for and ship bullet proof vests, night goggles and radios to their sons and daughters overseas because our government hasn't given them the right equipment to fight. That the humvees aren't protected on the bottom from land mines. That the U.S. is hurriedly sending "support kits" of armor for the sides because we sent our kids over there without right and safe vehicles. Is that what you said, America? Because that's what I heard.
    The beginning of it (the part i quoted above) was very good. It is true that sending troops to Iraq without the proper equipment is horrible and despicable even. Sending American soldiers to war without giving them adequate protection and equipment is one of the worst things a country can do.

    But let's look at something the quote didn't mention: both bush and kerry supported the war in iraq (well kerry did at one point).

    Bush started the war and also asked congress for $87 billion to buy more armored humvees, bullet proof vests, tanks, and other equipment necesary for our military. He wanted to supply our troops as best he could and the military as best he could.

    Kerry voted for the war but voted against the $87 billion to give our troops the equipment they need.

    That, coupled with the fact that liberals and democrats traditionally favor less military spending, while conservatives and republicans favor more military spending - makes it very easy to see why that was the only part of the quote from Kara Swanson that is not biased.

    Every chance she gets she gets blatantly biased and is sometimes rightout lying about things (ill post more below). But for that topic, one of the strongest arguments of the piece, there is no bias. Why is there no bias? Because it is pretty hard to try and make it sound like republicans are less supportive of our military than liberals. Why is it so hard to do? Becuase generally republicans DO support the military more than democrats.

    It just seems like the first, and best, paragraph is highly misplaced in an otherwised bias and filthy piece of writing.

  7. #127

    Default

    Here is the lies/bias section that I promised to post:

    Is that what you said, America ? That it's OK that we've lost more jobs with this president than any other in 75 years. That the jobs he's replaced
    average $ 9,000 less per year. That it's OK our deficit has more zeroes than we can possibly fathom.
    This is bias: Swanson finds it very convenient to completely forget that one main reason the economy fell apart was that the largest terrorist attack on US soil in history occurred. Maybe that many jobs were lost, but it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact America's financial hub was attacked and people became frightened to go to New York City or fly in airplanes for a while, could it? Of course not. And of course, that attack didn't occur because a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) ignored Bin Laden's decleration of Jihad against American in 1996 or the 1993 WTC attacks, or the 1998 embassy bombings. Of course a Democratic President couldn't be at fault for letting terrorism grow to the point where an attack like this was inevitable and imminent. It happened to occur during a Republican administration. How convenient for Miss Swanson to be able to blame the job loss on President Bush.

    This one is just a plain old lie:

    Is that what you said, America ? That it's OK if gays and lesbians lay down their lives in the war on terror, as long as they don't come out of the closet.
    A lie: Because there is no law against coming out of the closet! Some states have passed gay marriage bans, and that probably isn't constitutional or right because people should be allowed to marry who they want to without the government telling them who to marry. However, she makes it seem like we are sending out gays and lesbians en masse to fight wars and then when they get home we tell them they can't be gay. I agree the bans on gay marriage are discriminatory and should be repealed but it is nonsense to say that coming out of the closet has now been declared a crime.

    Is that what you said, America? That it doesn't matter if the world considers us a laughing stock.
    Back to the extreme stupidity of a few ignorant people. Of course, we should only be protecting our country and security if France agrees right? If France doesn't want us to pre-emptively take out terrorism/WMD we shouldnt right? After all, we owe it to France, since it was France that saved us in WWI and WWII.

    So, we need to pass a global test before pre-emption takes place right? At the same time you most intelligent people say "We will never allow another country to place a veto on our national security" (John Kerry 2004). So then how would this global test work? If they actually couldn't veto anything what would the global test really be? Try two letters: "B.S.".

    Is that what you said, America? That if your daughter is raped and gets pregnant because of it, that she should have that baby. That, if your niece is the victim of incest and is carrying her father's or uncle's baby, that she should not abort it. That if your wife is raped and is pregnant because of it, that you are going to welcome her bastard child. That the decision should be made by politicians and not by the woman whose body has been brutalized. Is that what you said, America? Because that's what I heard.
    This is just plain old biased: Funny how she mentions rape twice, and incest once. Then she says that you will necesarily welcome your wife's bastard child after she was raped. There is also something called adoption, which she conveniently leaves out. She also fails to mention that under liberal leadership (liberal leadership, is that an oxymoron by the way?) that any woman who wanted to could just have unprotected sex and kill her baby with no penalty. Funny how liberals always like to say they fight for the small and weak, but at the same time they abandon the smallest and weakest. The babies can't protect themselves from being killed. However, this issue will never be solved. The two opposing sides are too hard headed and stubborn to reach some middle ground. A woman's "Right to chose" would be a fine policy if there were no heartless women out there. If a woman chooses to have an abortion because having the baby may kill her, because she was raped, etc. - for any legitimate reason - ok, then maybe it is her choice. However, what is to stop women from killing babies just because they forgot to use a condom? Because they made a mistake and don't want to be inconvenienced they have the right to kill another human being? I wonder why our great unbiased leader Miss Swanson left that part out.

    I can't wait to read the responses to this one.

  8. #128

    Default

    I wasn't talking about ME, I was talking about YOU. The fact that you still don't understand what I am talking about is why I wished you luck.

    *The post above is as funny as anything on the Daily Show.

  9. #129
    Moderator NYatKNIGHT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Manhattan - South Village
    Posts
    4,240

    Default

    ^Like when he stares out at the audience with a perplexed look on his face as if to say, "did you hear what I just heard?"

  10. #130

    Default

    "However, what is to stop women from killing babies just because they forgot to use a condom?"

    Interesting that your entire argument against abortion lays blame solely on women.

  11. #131

    Default

    Or how he completely missed the meaning of...
    Is that what you said, America ? That it's OK if gays and lesbians lay down their lives in the war on terror, as long as they don't come out of the closet.
    by stating...
    A lie: Because there is no law against coming out of the closet!
    She was talking about soldiers.
    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo.../military.html

  12. #132

    Default

    The French Connection is always popular in Jesusland...
    After all, we owe it to France, since it was France that saved us in WWI and WWII.
    Americans should be proud of our actions in liberating Europe, but contrary to now popular belief, we did not enter WWII to free France, the UK, or anybody.

    WWII began on Sept 03, 1939, when Great Britian and France declared war on Germany.

    At the time, US public opinion was split on getting involved in a European matter. Over 2 years passed before we entered WWII. After the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec 07, 1941, the US declared war on Japan, but not on Germany. That happenned on Dec 11, right after Germany declared war on the US.

  13. #133

    Default

    January 7, 2005

    EDITORIAL

    The Election's Last Gasp

    Congressional Democrats staged an unusual protest yesterday when Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio objected to certifying the results of the 2004 election. Supporters of the defeated (and absent) John Kerry then spent two hours making speeches, most of which began with the declaration that George W. Bush had definitely won.

    It could not have been a totally satisfactory afternoon for the president's angry supporters or for the conspiracy theorists who still believe that Bush operatives managed to steal Ohio's electoral votes. The final count showed that Mr. Bush had won the state by more than 100,000 votes, and the Democrats who rose to complain about the process prefaced their remarks by saying things like "the irregularities in Ohio would not have overturned the results."

    But the Democrats were right to call attention to the defects in the system. Our elections need to do more than produce a legitimate winner. They need to do it through a process that seems fair to all reasonable citizens. On that count, the United States has a way to go.

    Electronic voting machines that do not produce a paper trail that can be rechecked in contested elections create worries that a contest could be stolen by computer hacking or by tampering with the machine software. Those concerns seem to have been unfounded in the last election, but it did not require paranoia to think that such things might happen.

    It is not illegal to require voters to stand in lines so long that they wind up being forced to give up or to skip work, but it is unfair - particularly when such delays happen mainly in poor and minority neighborhoods. It is not illegal to leave election operations in the hands of a partisan elected official, but such a situation will make the system seem biased to voters from the other side of the political divide. That is what happened in Ohio, where the secretary of state was also a co-chairman of the Bush campaign in that state.

    Democrats were obviously most vocal about the sloppy and highhanded way the election was run in many places, but the Republicans should also object. Mr. Bush won the most votes, but he has been deprived of universal confidence in the way they were counted.

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789

Similar Threads

  1. How to Hack an Election
    By Kris in forum News and Politics
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: December 25th, 2008, 12:47 PM
  2. Presidential Assassination Attempts
    By BrooklynRider in forum News and Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 26th, 2005, 04:21 PM
  3. Another Presidential Malaprop
    By ZippyTheChimp in forum Anything Goes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 12th, 2004, 10:16 AM
  4. Presidential Questionaire
    By ZippyTheChimp in forum News and Politics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: March 13th, 2004, 08:52 PM
  5. an early election poll of the WiredNY community
    By dbhstockton in forum News and Politics
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: February 10th, 2004, 09:00 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software