President Bush Submits Record $3.1 Trillion Budget

[12voltman59]

Our great president has submitted his latest (and hopefully LAST) budget to Congress---

It is something else---domestic programs cut while we spend a new record amount for "defense" even before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are factored in for many hundreds of billions more. The cost of those wars now is reaching the trlllion dollar figure.

The US now spends more by an exponential factor on the military, than all the rest of the nations on Earth combined. We are also now spending more on the military, even adjusted for inflation, what was spent during the height of World War II.

This new budget leaves a $400 billion deficit and also makes permanent his tax cuts for the most wealthy of our society.

This link leads to a commentary on Bush's budget:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/read-it-and-weep-bushs_b_85044.html

While it may be an editorial---the figures are factual---I suppose one can interpret them differently---but as Borosage does--I think Bush's budgetary priorities are a disaster for America's future.

As I have said in the past--I strongly hold to the belief that the presidency of George Walker Bush has been an absolute disaster for our nation---Bush wants to extend his "good" works well into the future---constraining future presidents and Congresses to having to still follow his misguided and disasterous priorities for many years to come.

I don't much care for "gridlock government" but I sure hope that the Democratically controlled US House and Senate do not roll over and let Bush's budget pass--if they have to lock up the government and nothing happens again until January '09--that would not be a bad thing in this case.

Better to have them do nothing at all and get a new president and Congress in control who will hopefully have a different set of priorities than does King Georgie...

[bisexualinsocal]

Well better do it now. Give the socialists an opportunity to pour the money down the drain and you can forget about a strong military.

[alaskacouple]

12voltman,

I was so glad to come on here today and find that someone had noticed this catastrophic fiasco! As I listened to the news last night I got such a sinking feeling in the core of my soul.

We have all learned a new scientific term in recent months that applies to global warming. That term is "tipping point" - the point beyond which our actions will have long term and unchangeable consequences.

This budget proposal made me think that we as a nation are reaching a monetary 'tipping point'. We have seen unbridled greed over the last decade decimate millions of families lives with first the stock market bubble, then the housing bubble, the tossing to the gutter of a generation of children who have far less hope and opportunity as preceding generations... And now this!

Have we all gone mad? Do we really think that we can continue to finance our excess with loans from the Chinese and Arab nations and somehow not become their slaves. I can't believe that the moneyed elite do not understand what they are doing - instead I think they don't care. It seems that globalization is their future hope and America and Americans are just another small part of the big picture.

As to those who have bought into this idea that if we can only just help the rich become richer, then somehow they will "create" jobs for the rest of us poor slobs - I beg you to stop and reconsider this. Perhaps Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh are not as smart as many have thought. Try to take a fresh look at our options as a nation - and IMHO a look at how other civilized nations conduct their affairs is a good place to start. We and we alone have pursued this national course of extreme militarization and fiscal irrespossibility while casting the weak in our society into the trash heap.

[DC_looking]

Addressing the comment about a strong military. Bush has had eight years to strengthen it and apparently it is not up to the task of controlling wither Afghanistan or Iraq.

In terms of socialistic tendencies, Bush's $1.2 Trillion dollar Medicare drug plan despite its merits or shortfalls is a pretty expensive example of socialism. The majority of the Defense budget is consumed by Tricare (military health care), benefits and pension for retired military and related services. These socialized benefits are deserved but expensive. Bear in mind that the DoD budget does not include VA benefits which, too, are significant. Finally, what do you call the financial aide that is distributed to victims of hurricanes and other natural disasters. I call it socialism. Why should you and I subsidize people who decide to live in high risk areas? Frankly, I don't mind helping victims of natural disasters. My point is simply this: socialism is embedded in our culture. Including, Bush's tax cut to the wealthy. If submitting a $3.1 Trillion budget accumulating a national debt of over $9 Trillion and record federal deficits and presiding over two recession is fiscal conservatism I want no partof it.

[shameless agitator]

My point is simply this: socialism is embedded in our culture. Including, Bush's tax cut to the wealthy. I have to take exception to this. A tax cut to the wealthiest segment of the population is the antithesis of socialism. Socialism is about equal distribution of the wealth, which would entail increasing taxes on the rich & decreasing them on the poor, not the other way around.

[bisexualinsocal]

Addressing the comment about a strong military. Bush has had eight years to strengthen it and apparently it is not up to the task of controlling wither Afghanistan or Iraq.


Apparently ousting the government of Afghanistan (The taliban) from power does not qualify as winning in Afghanistan. That's odd. Toppling their leadership and installing a new government sounds a lot like military victory to me.

Same thing in Iraq. We toppled their government and installed a US friendly government. Our men and women in the military have brought a peace to Iraq that generations of Iraqi's have never seen. Sounds like a military victory to me.

The facts of our military victories seem to fly in the face of your anti-Bush sentiment. Sounds like you just have a personal beef with Bush.

[shameless agitator]

Same thing in Iraq. We toppled their government and installed a US friendly government. Our men and women in the military have brought a peace to Iraq that generations of Iraqi's have never seen. Sounds like a military victory to me.

They're in the middle of a civil war and you call it victory? and peace????:confused:

[alaskacouple]

But the issue at hand is the budget. Regardless of what we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq (whether for good or bad) the question is ; Can we afford this type of position in regards to foreign policy? Of course defense is important, but when does defense become offense and when is enough defense enough?

So, getting back to the economy and the budget - Are we at a turning point or not? Can we just keep on spending that which we do not have?

When we as families must fit our purchases into our budgets, we have to make choices. The same is true on a national level. Do we choose to spend our limited resources on war and preparations for more war, or do we choose to care for the weak, the sick and the outcasts in our society, as well as build toward a better future through the education of the next generation? Do we choose to enact laws that benefit the grossly wealthy, or do we enact laws that benefit the true majority of this nation? We can't have everything, and our ultimate decision will say a lot about us as a people.

[vittoria]

"...'scuse me while I whip this out"




V

[jrlopz]

It is a shame that a party that claims that they believe in small government, low taxes, and fiscal conservatism had bankrupted this country during their 8 years in power. I hear these folks saying the economy is great and the collection of dumb followers they got believes it. That we are better now than 9 years ago just because we are safer while the working class can barely pay for food, gas, rent, and forget about medical insurance. Yes I believe in Democracy, but also believes that there are some ideas in Socialism that may work here and should be tried. I believe it would not damage the moral fabric of the Republic my fellow conservatives it will however make it strong again.

[nothings5d]

Yes I believe in Democracy, but also believes that there are some ideas in Socialism that may work here and should be tried.

Socialism is a system of social organization completely separate from the system of political organization practiced by a country. Governments can be referred to as Socialist or Communist, but that doesn't describe their political structure that refers only to their policies. The USSR was a Communist government, but it's political structure was Dictatorial. England is a fairly Socialist country, but at the same time it has a Democratic political structure.

Socialism and even Communism can coexist with Democracy, and actually work best when combined with Democracy. Well, maybe that should be "only work when combined with Democracy." I don't know of any country that is a TRUE Communism. And the only Socialist countries I know of where the people end up better for it being a Socialist country are Democracies.


They're in the middle of a civil war and you call it victory? and peace????:confused:

Pretty much my thoughts on that post...

[alaskacouple]

"...'scuse me while I whip this out"




V



Good point! I'll fill in the rest: OTE!

[DC_looking]

My dear friend bisexualinsocal:

We have not won in Afghanistan. The Taliban is resurgent. We will experience the same failure as did the former Soviet Union. Last I heard, Al Qaeda is still on the loose. Occupation is not victory. Harmid Karzai is nothing more than the mayor of Kabul. He has no legitimate authority. The fact that Karzai is in talks, or was in talks, with the Taliban in September of 2007 to establish peace sure does not sound like a victory to me. In terms of installing a friendly government in Iraq: we have not done that. The fractious nature of the Sunni, Shiite factions is a testament to the fact that whatever government we install is doomed to failure. This is not a military victory. Again, the poor American troops merely occupy. It is difficult to claim victory when all we did was depose a brutal dictator that we installed. It is by no means clear who will lead Iraq in our absence. And, I'm not at all sure what constitutes victory. Certainly not the bellicose proclamation of that ass Bush: "Mission accomplished" spewed out over 5 years ago. Victory indeed. Good morning Vietnam.

[DC_looking]

And just to be clear with regards to my sentiment of Bush. I despise the mother fucker.

[warmpuppy]

1. I thought this site was about bisexuality. Aren't we a bit off-topic?

2. At some point in time, someone would ultimately produce a $3 trillion budget. Budgets tend to grow over time. So what is so magical about this number? If a Democrat is in charge when the budget hits $4 trillion, are you gonna bitch about that? Universal healthcare, college for everybody, social services for illegal invaders, increased unemployment fueled by an anti-business attitude in Washington.....these are the things of which $4 trillion budgets are built.

[warmpuppy]

And just to be clear with regards to my sentiment of Bush. I despise the mother fucker.

Your anger is misdirected. You need to focus your venom on the voters in the 38 red states that denied you your moment in the Sun. Bush didn't steal your power -- those voters did.

[DC_looking]

Bush was the first president to post a $2 Billion dollar budget. Clinton, for whom I did not vote, left a budget surplus of some $500 Billion and was at least competent. By the way a little research will bear out that the stock market has performed better under democratic presidents. Not sure why, though I have some thoughts, but it is interesting. The right wing mythology is effective, entrenched and unshakable with respect to fiscal conservatism. Democrats aren't anti-business, another right wing kyth, they just believe in avaoinding things like the savings and loan crisis (Reagan), Enron, Worldcom, etc. and now the sub-prime debacle all courtesy of the Bush administration. But I guess that laissez faire shit is good for business. Unless, like Chrysler in the 70's, that was going bankrupt, no doubt due to the brilliance of Lee Iacoca, comes weeping to the government for a bail out, which President Ford doled out. Nice bit of socialism.

[the mage]

Apparently ousting the government of Afghanistan (The taliban) from power does not qualify as winning in Afghanistan. That's odd. Toppling their leadership and installing a new government sounds a lot like military victory to me.

Same thing in Iraq. We toppled their government and installed a US friendly government. Our men and women in the military have brought a peace to Iraq that generations of Iraqi's have never seen. Sounds like a military victory to me.

The facts of our military victories seem to fly in the face of your anti-Bush sentiment. Sounds like you just have a personal beef with Bush.

..................I bet you think the U.S. won the Vietnam war too...

[the mage]

Our great president has submitted his latest (and hopefully LAST) budget to Congress---

It is something else---domestic programs cut while we spend a new record amount for "defense" even before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are factored in for many hundreds of billions more. The cost of those wars now is reaching the trlllion dollar figure.

The US now spends more by an exponential factor on the military, than all the rest of the nations on Earth combined. We are also now spending more on the military, even adjusted for inflation, what was spent during the height of World War II.

This new budget leaves a $400 billion deficit and also makes permanent his tax cuts for the most wealthy of our society.

This link leads to a commentary on Bush's budget:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/read-it-and-weep-bushs_b_85044.html

While it may be an editorial---the figures are factual---I suppose one can interpret them differently---but as Borosage does--I think Bush's budgetary priorities are a disaster for America's future.

As I have said in the past--I strongly hold to the belief that the presidency of George Walker Bush has been an absolute disaster for our nation---Bush wants to extend his "good" works well into the future---constraining future presidents and Congresses to having to still follow his misguided and disasterous priorities for many years to come.

I don't much care for "gridlock government" but I sure hope that the Democratically controlled US House and Senate do not roll over and let Bush's budget pass--if they have to lock up the government and nothing happens again until January '09--that would not be a bad thing in this case.

Better to have them do nothing at all and get a new president and Congress in control who will hopefully have a different set of priorities than does King Georgie...

............Looking in from the outside it is quite clear the duby's assignment all along was to bankrupt the American middle class.
Your hyper wealthy citizens are doing just fine, scooping up land in South Africa and Dubai to escape the coming crash.
The existence of the middle class is not sustainable ecologically. a massive adjustment is coming and will occour in this generation's lifespan. Your wealthy have successfully consolidated their power and continue to do so.
Bushco and his Saudi allies are out to help their own, not you and me.

[alaskacouple]

But, irregardless of which party is in power - can we as a nation continue to borrow and spend at this level on a sustained basis?

The saying goes that 'Nero fiddled as Rome burned'... are we not 'spending as America burns'?

I don't think Ron Paul is presidential material, but he has brought up some very interesting and IMO valid monetary issues. If we collapse this economy with unbridled spending, it will be a devastating situation for the entire world. And we are not immune to a monetary collapse. In fact, it will just take a notion from our many lenders around the globe that we are not the best investment for them at this time in order to bring the house of cards down.

Are we not flirting with that 'perfect storm' now? Our economy is floundering to a standstill - we need to lower interest rates to stimulate it - but, we can't do that without making our debt unprofitable to our lenders, forcing them to move their money elsewhere... opps! now what?... opps! good old Uncle Sam all of the sudden can't make his loan payments!... opps! no more 3 trillion dollar budget after all!...opps!

I don't know about you guys, but when I see the speed at which the government and financial institutions have moved in an attempt to stop the hemorhaging - and when I see the serious expressions that can't be masked with brave words on the faces of the Sect. of Treasury and his advisers - and when I see foreign interests having to prop up a major financial house here in America - well, it causes me to sit up and take a bit more notice of just what might be going on here.

[bisexualinsocal]

It is a shame that a party that claims that they believe in small government, low taxes, and fiscal conservatism had bankrupted this country during their 8 years in power. I hear these folks saying the economy is great and the collection of dumb followers they got believes it. That we are better now than 9 years ago just because we are safer while the working class can barely pay for food, gas, rent, and forget about medical insurance. Yes I believe in Democracy, but also believes that there are some ideas in Socialism that may work here and should be tried. I believe it would not damage the moral fabric of the Republic my fellow conservatives it will however make it strong again.

When did the US declare bankruptcy?


Uhhhhhh........ never?

[bisexualinsocal]

..................I bet you think the U.S. won the Vietnam war too...

Here's what I believe. The United States has won in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[alaskacouple]

............Looking in from the outside it is quite clear the duby's assignment all along was to bankrupt the American middle class.
Your hyper wealthy citizens are doing just fine, scooping up land in South Africa and Dubai to escape the coming crash.
The existence of the middle class is not sustainable ecologically. a massive adjustment is coming and will occour in this generation's lifespan. Your wealthy have successfully consolidated their power and continue to do so.
Bushco and his Saudi allies are out to help their own, not you and me.

Thank you 'mage'! The more it is said, the more people will wake up and quit following the mantra; "help the rich so they can help you".

But, don't rest too easy just because you are in Canada. If this economy fails the entire world will be thrown into an economic nightmare such as has never been seen.

[12voltman59]

Here's what I believe. The United States has won in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Actually--since we are still well engaged in both places--it is not possilbe to say whether we have "won" or "lost" these "wars."

That judgement really does belong to history after some time has passed once everything is over and done with.

We may have "won" the first stages of these wars-but I think a strong argument can be made---we may have won the "war" part of both but are going to lose the "peace" parts.

I think that on the whole----our engagment in both Afghanistan and Iraq have been more harmful in more ways than they have been helpful----the thing is--many of the negative consequences that are yet to come our way thanks to these "wars" may not happen in our lifetime---it could take place in the lifetimes of our kids or grandkids----it is because of some spite we have done to someone today that will be "avenged" by someone not even born as yet.

In that part of the world: "Revenge is a dish best served cold."

There are certainly many strains that our egagement in Iraq and Afghanistan have had upon our military readiness and such----there are lots of former generals and admirals who say once they leave their service, that these strains threaten to undo our military--very much lilke what happened in the days following Vietnam---problems that took the better part of two decades to repair--

The Bush administraton has done not a whit to make our ports and other similar facilties any more safe--with this latest budget mentioned above---he would cut more of the funding necessary to make our port facilities safer---and to cut things like the National Institutes of Health and the CDC when we most probably face a pending flu pandemic that could wipe out a substantial precentage of the nation's population makes no sense at all.

How wise is that????

[IndyBiFun]

Bush's spending habits is over the top; I'll agree.

But, I'm glad the guy had the stones to defy all the pacifists who want to deny that we are fighting an enemy that wishes nothing more than to destroy the western world and western comforts that we all enjoy.

You can't stick your head in the sand and hope that if you are nice they will just go away. Just ask Chamberlain from WW II. Or ask the Clinton administration when we were being attacked around the globe during his term and he did nothing. There is no hope to sit down and negotiate with this enemy either.

This has been a new battlefield and I'm afraid we are all in it for quite a while boys and girls.

I'm also glad that the generation before ours did not have today's media or we would have stopped the very first day on the beaches at Normandy. There is no question if CNN, MSNBC and others were around instead of Ernie Pyle we and Europe would be speaking German and goosestepping to pictures of Hitler today. I hope our generation today has the stones and the forward thinking to keep after it like those in the past did.

[alaskacouple]

Lest we forget, America was attacked by a small band of religious extremists using box cutters and commercial aircraft. Much different than Hitler's attempt at conquering Europe with some of the most advanced military of that time.

IMO, our response in Afghanistan and the disruption of the haven that those who attacked us had built there was a needed and successful use of our power and resources.

But, we never were threatened by Iraq. IMO we went there to settle old scores and to gain control of another country's oil. Now we are the occupiers of a nation. Funny how we never see our own actions as being anything but honorable - just like the good German citizens who followed Hitler to their destruction. (if you like to read history, you'll find that the government under Hitler offered many convincing arguments why their actions were honorable and called for. I mean it's not like they just went mad and attacked without having their own justifiable reasons.)

And lest we forget another thing, it was we who unleashed nuclear weapons upon this earth - it was we who chose to incinerate unknown thousands of simple men, women, children, grandmothers, and grandfathers in the brave defense of our nation. Let us lay aside blind patriotism and question our "leaders" - let us not be like those average German citizens who followed a mad man to their destruction. Not everything or every action carried forth under the banner of the stars and stripes is by default good and honorable.

If we as citizens fail to hold the leadership responsible for their actions, then we too will probably end up bankrupt of both cash and honor in this world. We too will be mocked in future history books.

[bisexualinsocal]

Lest we forget, America was attacked by a small band of religious extremists using box cutters and commercial aircraft. Much different than Hitler's attempt at conquering Europe with some of the most advanced military of that time.

IMO, our response in Afghanistan and the disruption of the haven that those who attacked us had built there was a needed and successful use of our power and resources.

But, we never were threatened by Iraq. IMO we went there to settle old scores and to gain control of another country's oil. Now we are the occupiers of a nation. Funny how we never see our own actions as being anything but honorable - just like the good German citizens who followed Hitler to their destruction. (if you like to read history, you'll find that the government under Hitler offered many convincing arguments why their actions were honorable and called for. I mean it's not like they just went mad and attacked without having their own justifiable reasons.)

The west is threatened by "That part of the world". Jihadists don't care about borders, to them borders are just an attempt by the west to prevent a muslim Caliphate. With millions of muslims in that part of the world, we NEED to change how that region functions. We MUST. If even 1% of that part of the world is jihad, that's 100,000 jihadists. American victory in Iraq means an Iraq that lives at peace with it's neighbors, industrializes and puts people to work and doesn't produce angry nut bag jihadists like it's been doing for the last 100 years (literally). Iraq will become a model of arab republic democracy and it's neighbors will follow it's lead.

It's funny how some people want to play Neville Chamberlain. What do you want to do next? Fly over there, shake hands and have em sign a piece of paper and then declare-


Peace in our time

?

The weak, pacifist, appeasing mentality led to the Luftwaffe flying over London. Millions more people died, UNNECESSARILY, due to the pacifist Chamberlain and the complicit pacifist, Franklin Roosevelt. You MUST fight the bully and you must fight them on their own turf. If you don't, you will fight the bully at home. The luftwaffe will fly over London. We've already seen how this enemy fights. They bomb embassies, they fly PLANES INTO BUILDINGS, the bomb spanish subway stations and they're innovative in doing it.

Or are you so willing to put all those atrocities aside?


And lest we forget another thing, it was we who unleashed nuclear weapons upon this earth - it was we who chose to incinerate unknown thousands of simple men, women, children, grandmothers, and grandfathers in the brave defense of our nation. Let us lay aside blind patriotism and question our "leaders" - let us not be like those average German citizens who followed a mad man to their destruction. Not everything or every action carried forth under the banner of the stars and stripes is by default good and honorable.

If we as citizens fail to hold the leadership responsible for their actions, then we too will probably end up bankrupt of both cash and honor in this world. We too will be mocked in future history books.

The United States used nuclear weapons on Japan because it was the right thing to do. It ended the WAR. Was it tragic? Yes, but it could have been worse and probably saved MILLIONS more lives than it took.

You can carry that guilt chip on your shoulder, but I wont and I don't. America did what had to be done and continues to do the work that other nations will not.

It is why we are the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave

[vittoria]

Personally, I believe as far as "over there" goes, remember the Prime Directive.

As far as another 3 trillion dollar budget..

theres only around 280 million people in this country.

Just divide 3 trillion dollars amongst 280 million people, and I believe we WOULDNT have a problem. Hell, we would have enough to buy property, pay off debts, get health care, buy a condo. And even in the immortal words of Rob ROddy (sp ) of the Price is Right.... A NEW CAR!!!!!!!

However, 3 trillion will be caught up in red tape. We will NEVER see it. There will be forms for aid to see who deserves it more and who doesnt... etc etc.

So as usual, it only looks good on paper.

Screw 'em. Its just a last bid for legacy. Leave on the "right foot" (hell he has stepped on as many toes!!)

V

[bisexualinsocal]

Personally, I believe as far as "over there" goes, remember the Prime Directive.

As far as another 3 trillion dollar budget..

theres only around 280 million people in this country.

Just divide 3 trillion dollars amongst 280 million people, and I believe we WOULDNT have a problem. Hell, we would have enough to buy property, pay off debts, get health care, buy a condo. And even in the immortal words of Rob ROddy (sp ) of the Price is Right.... A NEW CAR!!!!!!!

However, 3 trillion will be caught up in red tape. We will NEVER see it. There will be forms for aid to see who deserves it more and who doesnt... etc etc.

So as usual, it only looks good on paper.

Screw 'em. Its just a last bid for legacy. Leave on the "right foot" (hell he has stepped on as many toes!!)

V


The governments job is not to give handouts. What our tax system does is essentially this.

They take your money through excessive taxation, they charge you a processing fee and then they somewhat deliver on what they are obligated to deliver on and the rest goes pork barrel.

If the government would just cut taxes, there would be no need for federal aid. CUT TAXES! For the rich, for the poor, for businesses and everyone in between.

[nothings5d]

Here's what I believe. The United States has won in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We may have ousted a bad government which does in itself constitute as A victory, but since we are still fighting, the war having changed to a civil war, we have not won the TOTAL victory yet. Declaring the war in Iraq and Afghanistan over right now would be like if Roosevelt had declared World War II over when Germany Surrendered, a.k.a. VE Day. He didn't declare total victory then because there were still further victories that were needed. i.e. Japan.

We have won a victory in Iraq and a victory in Afghanistan, but we have yet to win total victory in either country.

As Marcus Cole from Babylon 5 said "We're still in a war here, Stephen, only now it's a different kind of war, maybe the worst of the two."

For those of you don't know the show, they had just gotten out of a war with an extremely evil power, and at this point were engaged in a civil war.

[vittoria]

"Revenge is a dish best served cold."




"Its very cold in space...." (Khan, Star Trek 2--The Wrath of Khan as voiced by Ricardo Montalban (sp) )

[vittoria]

Actually--since we are still well engaged in both places--it is not possilbe to say whether we have "won" or "lost" these "wars."

That judgement really does belong to history after some time has passed once everything is over and done with.

We may have "won" the first stages of these wars-but I think a strong argument can be made---we may have won the "war" part of both but are going to lose the "peace" parts.

I think that on the whole----our engagment in both Afghanistan and Iraq have been more harmful in more ways than they have been helpful----the thing is--many of the negative consequences that are yet to come our way thanks to these "wars" may not happen in our lifetime---it could take place in the lifetimes of our kids or grandkids----it is because of some spite we have done to someone today that will be "avenged" by someone not even born as yet.

In that part of the world: "Revenge is a dish best served cold."

There are certainly many strains that our egagement in Iraq and Afghanistan have had upon our military readiness and such----there are lots of former generals and admirals who say once they leave their service, that these strains threaten to undo our military--very much lilke what happened in the days following Vietnam---problems that took the better part of two decades to repair--

The Bush administraton has done not a whit to make our ports and other similar facilties any more safe--with this latest budget mentioned above---he would cut more of the funding necessary to make our port facilities safer---and to cut things like the National Institutes of Health and the CDC when we most probably face a pending flu pandemic that could wipe out a substantial precentage of the nation's population makes no sense at all.

How wise is that????


We may have ousted a bad government which does in itself constitute as A victory, but since we are still fighting, the war having changed to a civil war, we have not won the TOTAL victory yet. Declaring the war in Iraq and Afghanistan over right now would be like if Roosevelt had declared World War II over when Germany Surrendered, a.k.a. VE Day. He didn't declare total victory then because there were still further victories that were needed. i.e. Japan.

We have won a victory in Iraq and a victory in Afghanistan, but we have yet to win total victory in either country.

As Marcus Cole from Babylon 5 said "We're still in a war here, Stephen, only now it's a different kind of war, maybe the worst of the two."

For those of you don't know the show, they had just gotten out of a war with an extremely evil power, and at this point were engaged in a civil war.

Verily. Watched it like religion... for lack of "Trek" of course.:cool:

Ah... seems that science fiction is becoming Social Studies :)

[nothings5d]

Before starting this post I would like to reiterate something said in the "Request: Bar political threads" thread. We should only discuss politics as long as we can remain civil. I am making as good an attempt to remain as civil as I possibly can, but I have a feeling that if this thread goes on much longer it will degenerate completely and possibly spill into other threads. Keep in mind in reading this I am not at all angry in writing it and that it is not meant as a personal attack, I'm simply putting up counterpoints to the arguments posted by bisexualinsocal. After this I will probably only post short comments on here.


The west is threatened by "That part of the world". Jihadists don't care about borders, to them borders are just an attempt by the west to prevent a muslim Caliphate. With millions of muslims in that part of the world, we NEED to change how that region functions. We MUST. If even 1% of that part of the world is jihad, that's 100,000 jihadists. American victory in Iraq means an Iraq that lives at peace with it's neighbors They may currently be at peace with their neighbors, but that is because they are at war with us and themselves.

, industrializes and puts people to work and doesn't produce angry nut bag jihadists like it's been doing for the last 100 years (literally).
Not directly relevant to the topic at hand, but did you know that the word jihad translates to struggle. Most people think that it means holy war, but it just means struggle. Some Arabic people name their male children Jihad to remind them that raising a child is hard work. Just some food for thought.

Iraq will become a model of arab republic democracy and it's neighbors will follow it's lead.
Do you mean by this that they will do it automatically or that they are going to be forced to do it? Just a question asked because it's hard to get tone from written words and I'm not sure which you're meaning.


It's funny how some people want to play Neville Chamberlain. What do you want to do next? Fly over there, shake hands and have em sign a piece of paper and then declare-


Peace in our time

?
No one is suggesting being as naive as Neville Chamberlain, but if we can negotiate a peace that would actually work, then shouldn't we negotiate that peace?

The weak, pacifist, appeasing mentality led to the Luftwaffe flying over London. Millions more people died, UNNECESSARILY, due to the pacifist Chamberlain and the complicit pacifist, Franklin Roosevelt. You MUST fight the bully and you must fight them on their own turf. If you don't, you will fight the bully at home. The luftwaffe will fly over London. We've already seen how this enemy fights. They bomb embassies, they fly PLANES INTO BUILDINGS, the bomb spanish subway stations and they're innovative in doing it.

Or are you so willing to put all those atrocities aside?

Putting the "atrocities" aside would be too weak of a response, but we have gone and taken too strong of a response. By changing our policies we have actually made the terrorists win, because we ARE terrified of them as a country.

Fighting the bully is actually a very bad idea in this case because it will just make more bullies in the long run.

As Londo Mollari from Babylon 5 said "Physics tells us that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. They hate us, we hate them, they hate us back. And so, here we are, victims of mathematics!"

What we need to do is break the cycle, not feed it.

And sorry for quoting Babylon 5 in two posts in this topic, but I'm going to do it again in the next section of this post. I quote it so much because that show has so many great quotes that are commentaries on politics and sociology.

The United States used nuclear weapons on Japan because it was the right thing to do. It ended the WAR. Was it tragic? Yes, but it could have been worse and probably saved MILLIONS more lives than it took.

As Laura Rosen said in Season 1 Episode 21 of Babylon 5 "The Quality of Mercy" "I did the necessary thing, that is not always the same as the right thing."
The nuclear bombing of Japan did end the war quicker and probably saved more lives than it took, but that only made it the necessary thing, not the right thing.


You can carry that guilt chip on your shoulder, but I wont and I don't. America did what had to be done and continues to do the work that other nations will not.

There's a very good reason other nations won't do it and that's because they don't think it's right, and neither do I.


It is why we are the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave
We still are the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, but not because of that.

[12voltman59]

"Its very cold in space...." (Khan, Star Trek 2--The Wrath of Khan as voiced by Ricardo Montalban (sp) )

Actually--after a little bit of websearching--I found this posting regarding one possible origin of the phrase "revenge is a dish best served cold" that goes back to 18th century France:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/9/messages/813.html

But in the Iraqi and arabic culture---in an article I had read in the NY Times prior to the onset of the war back in 2003---the writer had spent time throughout Iraq and the middle east asking people there what they thought of the pending war----a tribal leader said that in their culture--when they vow to avenge the death of one of their own by an "infidel"---it matters not whether the revenge (carried out by some family member sworn to do so) takes place today, next year, 50 years, 100 years or 500 years from now-just as long as the revenge gets carried out----this comes from a culture in which you have the Sunnis and Shiites still at odds over a dispute between their respective leaders which took place about 900 years ago as if it happened a few weeks ago.

We should not have stirred up that sleeping tiger.

As I read that and as the war started--it did sort of remind me of the plot line of that Star Trek movie--but of course---the writers of Star Trek cribbed much of thier story lines from a few hack writers like Shakespeare and Milton (:bigrin::bigrin:) in the case of creating the character and story of "Khan."

[vittoria]

Verily.

I have noticed recently that Science Fiction TV program(me)s like Star Trek and Babylon 5 were actually social commentaries... lots of great sci-fi are social commentaries of a sort.. whether it be Outer Limits or classic Rod Serling Twilight Zone. (keeping in mind i'm referring only to INTELLIGENT social commentary)

Its an elegant way to address the problems of our day and see 'outside the box'.

[shameless agitator]

Heinlein famously said the reason he set his stories hundreds of years in the future was because he'd be charged with sedition if he made them current day.

[bisexualinsocal]

They may currently be at peace with their neighbors, but that is because they are at war with us and themselves.

Actually, they aren't at peace. Jihadists are at war in the Philippines, Kashmir, China, Pakistan, Syria, Palestine... I mean, the list is endless. Islamic terrorism is far and wide in scope. It's global.


Not directly relevant to the topic at hand, but did you know that the word jihad translates to struggle. Most people think that it means holy war, but it just means struggle. Some Arabic people name their male children Jihad to remind them that raising a child is hard work. Just some food for thought.

I think it's more like "Struggle for god", which is ridiculous. These people are on jihad simply out of self-inadequacy. In fact, almost all mass movements are motivated by personal insecurity. In the jihadists mind, he's completely abdicated of his own evil actions because he surrenders his life in the name of God. It in the name of "the cause".


Do you mean by this that they will do it automatically or that they are going to be forced to do it? Just a question asked because it's hard to get tone from written words and I'm not sure which you're meaning.

I mean that the Iranians (for example) will see the freedom and economic prosperity that the Iraqi's are going to enjoy and will become envious and push the mullah's out of power. Once we get some Walmart and Sony PSP's in Iraq, they'll want to throw in with America, too.


No one is suggesting being as naive as Neville Chamberlain, but if we can negotiate a peace that would actually work, then shouldn't we negotiate that peace?

I'm with you on that one but keep in mind the marching orders of the jihadists. This is a quote from Osama Bin Laden's Mentor, Abdullah Yusuf Azzam

"Jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences and no dialogues."

These guys are not playing. They won't rest until we bury them and the sooner the better.


Putting the "atrocities" aside would be too weak of a response, but we have gone and taken too strong of a response. By changing our policies we have actually made the terrorists win, because we ARE terrified of them as a country.

Fighting the bully is actually a very bad idea in this case because it will just make more bullies in the long run.

I disagree with that. People will love or hate us no matter what we do. This is not to say that our actions do not carry consequences. But there were buttloads of terrorists before and there's buttloads now. Who bombed the Cole? Who bombed 3 embassies? Who started the Arab Israeli War of 1948? Why did Mohammed attack the jews in Medina?

There are terrorists because Mohammed was a violent man. When the jews and Christians didn't convert to his brand of faith, he adopted a very anti-jewish and anti-Christian position. That position was "convert or die".

In other words, they hate us because we simply aren't muslim. Has nothing to do with anything other than hate. I know it seems irrational to the civil western mind.


As Londo Mollari from Babylon 5 said "Physics tells us that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. They hate us, we hate them, they hate us back. And so, here we are, victims of mathematics!"

What we need to do is break the cycle, not feed it.

And we are breaking the cycle. Once we get Iraq up and running and the Iraqi's living in stability, they will see that we don't hate them and we want the best for them. The only thing we hate is those who deprive others of their god given right to freedom. As bisexual people enjoying our sexual freedom, we ought to hate that especially.


The nuclear bombing of Japan did end the war quicker and probably saved more lives than it took, but that only made it the necessary thing, not the right thing.

There's a very good reason other nations won't do it and that's because they don't think it's right, and neither do I.


It was the right thing. If it's necessary, then it's right. Maybe not popular, maybe painful, maybe ugly, but it was the right thing.

[nothings5d]

Actually, they aren't at peace. Jihadists are at war in the Philippines, Kashmir, China, Pakistan, Syria, Palestine... I mean, the list is endless. Islamic terrorism is far and wide in scope. It's global.
My statement there was not about the Jihadists, but about Iraq.

It was the right thing. If it's necessary, then it's right. Maybe not popular, maybe painful, maybe ugly, but it was the right thing.
Something being necessary does not always mean it's right. Rightness is determined by the individual and therefore no decision as complex as that can be labeled as right or wrong, it was right "from a certain point of view".

Let me pose this to you.

You're to be driving your car and see 15 children suddenly run out in the road. You have no time to stop. If you were to swerve right you hit 10 kids instead, if you were to swerve left you would drive over a cliff. Now say that you also happen to be carrying the only existing sample of the cure for Cancer. What is the right decision.

"From a certain point of view" since more than 5 people would be saved from the cure for Cancer not being hurtled over a cliff, then killing the kids is the right choice. But from another point of view, what if one of the kids you would run over eventually finds the cure for AIDS. If someone has found the cure for Cancer surely others can't be too far behind, so only a couple thousand people who would die before the cure would be found again as opposed to the millions possibly saved by a future cure for AIDS. Saving life is the only priority here. So which is the right decision.

An action may be necessary, but that doesn't make it right.

[DC_looking]

bisexualinsocal:

The US Government has of yet to declare bankruptcy. I you would go back and read my post what I said was that Chrysler under the leadership of Lee Iacoca was going to declare bankruptcy until the US Government (i.e., we tax payers) bailed out his failed management.

Also for those of you who may not have considered it, the job of the Government is to ensure that the wealth and power remain in the hands of those who have it. From the 'founding fathers' on down.

[12voltman59]

Verily.

I have noticed recently that Science Fiction TV program(me)s like Star Trek and Babylon 5 were actually social commentaries... lots of great sci-fi are social commentaries of a sort.. whether it be Outer Limits or classic Rod Serling Twilight Zone. (keeping in mind i'm referring only to INTELLIGENT social commentary)

Its an elegant way to address the problems of our day and see 'outside the box'.

Certainly--one new Sci-Fi television series that has taken acting, writing, etc. to a entirely new level is the new version of Battlestar Galactica on the Sci-Fi channel--

Forget about the series having an overlay of being science fiction---it is just incredible story telling and the creators and writers of that show are using the series to make comment on our current situation--and much of what they see ain't pretty---but that is the basis of great story telling.

If they were telling the same underlying story and put it in a realistic, modern setting---it would probably not be as popular as it has become and would also come under fire for being too polemic.

This is an old tradition going back to those who entertained at court, for the pleasure of the King or Queen and their barons--their mockery actually taking aim at their masters in a disguised form that if was direct--the King would order "Off with their heads, I say!!!" or in Soviet Russia---would have resulted in them being sent them to the gulag for being "counter-revoluntionary!"

[bisexualinsocal]

bisexualinsocal:

The US Government has of yet to declare bankruptcy. I you would go back and read my post what I said was that Chrysler under the leadership of Lee Iacoca was going to declare bankruptcy until the US Government (i.e., we tax payers) bailed out his failed management.

Also for those of you who may not have considered it, the job of the Government is to ensure that the wealth and power remain in the hands of those who have it. From the 'founding fathers' on down.

Oh so it's the government that's keeping me down!

Whew! What a load off my chest. Here I was pointing the finger at myself. Good to know that now I have someone else to blame. If I don't get the job, it's the government. If I don't get the promotion....... the government took it from me. If I don't succeed in life, it's because of the government.

Damn, I don't even know why I have mirrors in my house. Why should I look at myself?

[nothings5d]

Oh so it's the government that's keeping me down!

Whew! What a load off my chest. Here I was pointing the finger at myself. Good to know that now I have someone else to blame. If I don't get the job, it's the government. If I don't get the promotion....... the government took it from me. If I don't succeed in life, it's because of the government.

Damn, I don't even know why I have mirrors in my house. Why should I look at myself?

That's not what he said at all, he simply said the goal of government is to keep power where it is. That doesn't mean the government is keeping you from getting a job, or a promotion. And the government doesn't keep you from succeeding in life. The government just keeps those who have a good enough measure of success from failing at life, so to speak.

I know that I've said before that it's hard to get tone from writing, but it seems to me that you're getting a little hot under the collar. Is this the case? And if so why? If I'm wrong about this I'm sorry.

[bisexualinsocal]

That's not what he said at all, he simply said the goal of government is to keep power where it is. That doesn't mean the government is keeping you from getting a job, or a promotion. And the government doesn't keep you from succeeding in life. The government just keeps those who have a good enough measure of success from failing at life, so to speak.

I know that I've said before that it's hard to get tone from writing, but it seems to me that you're getting a little hot under the collar. Is this the case? And if so why? If I'm wrong about this I'm sorry.

Well follow the thought process here. At the end of that logic is perpetual mediocrity since "The government" will limit your success. By placing the blame on governmental "power preservation", you are essentially abdicating yourself of the 'burden' of hard work. I mean, why try? The government will only let you go so far.

That logic is cowardly.

[vittoria]

Um...

theres no such thing as cowardly logic... even an avid fan of Trek knows that. This government has been very adept at supporting big business, and making certain that those in the upper eschelon (yes, eschelon... the upper 1% ) dont have to pay much taxes. Thats not "cowardly logic"...its the truth.
History teaches us that. It has been demonstrated time and time again. No need to get angry...

speaking of which...

and not trying to start an argument...

but didnt someone titled bisexualinsocal type a thread stating his disdain of political threads?

Feb 5, 2008 , 6:26 PM #1
bisexualinsocal
Member

USA, California = Other Areas



Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 22 Request: Bar political threads

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've seen other message boards turn into a hate fest over politics and religion. Is this message board really a place for tit for tat political anger? I thought this was a message board for bisexual people? I don't know how others feel but I vote for leaving politics OUT of this forum.


Just figured I would ask. Now THAT'S ILLOGICAL. (Spock-like eyebrow raise)

V

[wolfcamp]

Well follow the thought process here. At the end of that logic is perpetual mediocrity since "The government" will limit your success. By placing the blame on governmental "power preservation", you are essentially abdicating yourself of the 'burden' of hard work. I mean, why try? The government will only let you go so far.

That logic is cowardly.

I think the question is not who is being held back, but who is being enabled. If you look at the last seven years, the enabled are the large corporations, the banks, and those with lots and lots of money. For example, look at the prescription drug bill passed a few years ago to supposedly help old people. It was clearly biased toward the drug companies. By banning negotiations for lower prescription prices, it imposed a huge cost on those it was intended to help. If people aren't angry about that, they should be.

Who are the people who are not enabled? It's people who work hard all their lives and try to retire, but find they have to go back to work to get reasonable health care. It's college students who find that the cost of student loans has doubled. It's people who lose their jobs to the global economy but can't afford retraining to become reemployed. It's the substitute teacher (non-benefited) with inadequate private health insurance who discovers a lump on her breast and has no where to turn. These are the examples I know first hand, but I know there are many others. The un-enabled are the little people, the wage earners, the self employed, and yes, the unemployed (for whatever reason). Some of them work pretty darn hard. They aren't all ne'er-do-wells.

It doesn't make any difference that self-responsibility is a worthy trait, and I agree that it is. It's just that more and more people are feeling disenfranchised. They are working hard and not getting the things they want or need, like health care, or an honest mortgage contract. They see the government giving out breaks, but they see those breaks all going to someone else- the oil companies, the insurance companies, the banks, the HMOs, the CEOs.

The playing field is not level, and it's becoming tilted more toward the friends of those in power. If this isn't true, then it certainly has the appearance of being true. People are getting PO'd. There is a groundswell of people looking for change, and it's not just a few people, it's a lot of people. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next year.

WC

[bisexualinsocal]

I think the question is not who is being held back, but who is being enabled. If you look at the last eight years, the enabled are the large corporations, the banks, and those with lots and lots of money. For example, look at the prescription drug bill passed a few years ago to supposedly help old people. It was clearly biased toward the drug companies. By banning negotiations for lower prescription prices, it imposed a huge cost on those it was intended to help. If people aren't angry about that, they should be.

It actually did benefit old people by giving them choices that were non-existent before. And I don't understand what the problem is with companies making money. It's not like companies are run by martians, THE PEOPLE are the corporations. The employees, the shareholders, all of us. I have no problem with people making money, never have. In fact, I think the more money the better.


Who are the people who are not enabled? It's people who work hard all their lives and try to retire, but find they have to go back to work to get reasonable health care. It's college students who find that the cost of student loans has doubled. It's people who lose their jobs to the global economy but can't afford retraining to become reemployed. It's the substitute teacher (non-benefited) with inadequate private health insurance who discovers a lump on her breast and has no where to turn. These are the examples I know first hand, but I know there are many others. The un-enabled are the little people, the wage earners, the self employed, and yes, the unemployed (for whatever reason). Some of them work pretty darn hard. They aren't all ne'er-do-wells.

It doesn't make any difference that self-responsibility is a worthy trait, and I agree that it is. It's just that more and more people are feeling disenfranchised. They are working hard and not getting the things they want or need, like health care, or an honest mortgage contract. They see the government giving out breaks, but they see those breaks all going to someone else- the oil companies, the insurance companies, the banks, the HMOs, the CEOs.

Let me know if you can find someone who was FORCED into signing a mortgage contract. As far as I know, mortgages are entirely voluntary. We are all grown up I presume. We all know to read contracts that we sign. Someone signs a bad contract and then wants to blame it on "the enabled", I find that entirely laughable. In this country, if you don't make it it's not because of the country, it's because of you. Real estate prices are not at the level they are at because people can't afford homes. Prices are high because people have money or think they have the money.


The playing field is not level

Nor should it be. I'm not a fan of big government coming in to legislate away the shortcomings of some people. If I have to choose between big business or big government, I choose big business.


and it's becoming tilted more toward the friends of those in power. If this isn't true, then it certainly had the appearance of being true, and I say where there's smoke, there's fire. People are getting PO'd. There is a groundswell of people looking for change, and it's not just a few people, it's a lot of people. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next year.

WC

The po'd people need to look in the mirror. Then they'd be really pissed off.

[gfofbiguy]

It actually did benefit old people by giving them choices that were non-existent before. And I don't understand what the problem is with companies making money. It's not like companies are run by martians, THE PEOPLE are the corporations. The employees, the shareholders, all of us. I have no problem with people making money, never have. In fact, I think the more money the better.

Can you say "Enron"?

[bisexualinsocal]

Can you say "Enron"?

I can say all kinds of stuff. Enron was a flash in the pan. For every bad company there's literally hundreds of thousands of good companies with good people earning wages.

[gfofbiguy]

I can say all kinds of stuff. Enron was a flash in the pan. For every bad company there's literally hundreds of thousands of good companies with good people earning wages.

Obviously you can...

Enron was not a "flash in the pan" as you call it...many more companies have done the same thing as Enron did to its employees and sometimes worse things: cutting jobs here in the US to send overseas to "save money" - but that gives us crappy products, dead pets, lead-based paint on our children's toys, etc., etc., and more and more "good people" here in the US on unemployment because their jobs were cut and they can't afford to be retrained (as WC said). I am not talking about the people who are drawing government checks and are perfectly fit and healthy and able to work but would rather sit on their lazy asses and collect welfare; I am talking about the people who have given their all to a company only to be robbed of their pension plan that they put in their hard earned money, get laid off so that the "good company" can "save money" and go watch their job get sent overseas...

[bisexualinsocal]

Obviously you can...

Enron was not a "flash in the pan" as you call it...many more companies have done the same thing as Enron did to its employees and sometimes worse things: cutting jobs here in the US to send overseas to "save money" - but that gives us crappy products, dead pets, lead-based paint on our children's toys, etc., etc., and more and more "good people" here in the US on unemployment because their jobs were cut and they can't afford to be retrained (as WC said). I am not talking about the people who are drawing government checks and are perfectly fit and healthy and able to work but would rather sit on their lazy asses and collect welfare; I am talking about the people who have given their all to a company only to be robbed of their pension plan that they put in their hard earned money, get laid off so that the "good company" can "save money" and go watch their job get sent overseas...


Like I said, for every bad company there are literally hundreds of thousands of good companies with good employees earning wages.

[vittoria]

Wow :) The information superhighway is getting clogged with something I havent seen yet from some (and he knows who he is)... FACTS!!!

List them. No vague generalities. Have some research with your claims, not repetitive talking points. Just a thought.

[shameless agitator]

Like I said, for every bad company there are literally hundreds of thousands of good companies with good employees earning wages.Considering your knowledge & skill level in debating politics I can see why you wanted it banned.

[vittoria]

Like I said, for every bad company there are literally hundreds of thousands of good companies with good employees earning wages.

Good employees earning shitty wages.... yeah you're right.


Corporations who claim they allegedly cant make enough money to pay their employees because the cost of living has gotten so high thanks to oil companies and their gas prices, lack of adequate health care ( removing a tooth at a dentist office cost about $300 without insurance... who do YOU know that has $300 at any given moment... that they dont have to take away from a bill or two to shell out??), the increasing price of food (are we running out of cows or something? a gallon of milk is equal to a gallon of gasoline!!! 3 chicken breasts are $7.00, 3 pounds of ground beef is about $8.00, 4 lbs of sugar is $2.19)---yet the corporate elite sit at home, using our backs as footstools, while we fight for the crumbs, and they keep us occupied with iPods and Blackberries that we dont flippin need--"Give them more toys to keep their minds off of how badly they're FUCKED"---Good companies. Like WHO??? Firestone? They were the FIRST to sell us out... I lived in the birth place of rubber (Akron) and DONT get me started on your cock and bull story of how great everything is. You dont get out much do you? Firestone was the first to leave to US to go overseas. Everyone else followed suit. Coca Cola? They abuse their employees overseas because their overseas employees cant live on 3 cents a day. They even shoot them. IHOP??? Screw them knuckleheads. Do you know they only pay their cooks $9.00 on the topside, and complain that they cant afford to have their employees have insurance, so they PURPOSELY keep the hours per employee low (around 20 hours a week) just so the fat cats can sit at home and watch the little "mice" ( employees) scamper around the restaurant running in circles on their infinite ceiling cameras? And half of the management staff NEVER worked in the restaurant industry in their LIVES... but ask ANY person that worked in ANY restaurant in these UNITED STATES and they'll tell you the same thing! O wait... please tell me that factories and warehouses are just perfect!! THEY ARENT... factory jobs are losing employees left and right... ask those who once worked for LTV steel... or Ford for that matter... all American my ass!! They are firing people, laying them off, just to send their product overseas. Hoover vacuums? Heh. GONE. Company loyalty means NIL to these people. Loyalty to their pockets and their bank accounts. Hell, they wont even TRAIN their loyal employees to use the new machinery..instead they bolt on them... years of dedication down the tubes! No pensions, no severance. They just pack up and go. These "good companies" dont even want to pay us "good employees" a good, decent LIVING WAGE...just the bare minimums...

Wonder how many college graduates are amongst the homeless in this country...former home owners screwed from those refinancing scams, how many elderly like my grandmother who has to make decisions between her health (since Medicare doesnt pay for much anymore thanks to the government) medication, and gas to heat her home in the winter!

And please, dont say things like "Its why voting is so important". Do you think any person in their right mind would NOT want adequate health care for people, insurance for the poor, and the SOON TO BE POOR?? Do you REALLY believe people voted AGAINST these things??? Population control.... its not cost effective to assure that EVERYBODY lives...

So, before you start making blanket statements in a post you want nothing to do with... maybe you should (drumroll please) quit while you're ahead, because you DONT know what you're talking about. You have no facts to support your rants, you already said you dont like political posts, yet you insist on flaming this one with unintelligible gibberish. I'm not flaming YOU, believe that... but everything you say in this topic is bogus. You cant prove anything, you havent proved anything, its as if you watched Fox News and said everything they said WORD FOR WORD. This is the Deep End of the pool my friend... and you're drowning. Take the "LifeSaver", and save yourself.:2cents:

By the Power of Truth,


V

[wolfcamp]

I didn't really think I was going to change anyone's mind with my comments. I was just saying what I think. My opinions and values have been shaped by my own experience which, to me, make them valid. Other people have their opinions and priorities, and that's fine. Mine are just different, that's all. I'm not as motivated by money as some people.

I worked for a big corporation, and I made good money, but almost every year that I worked there they had big layoffs around the winter holidays. It was incredibly stressful, and I came to feel like I was losing my soul, even though I always made the cut. I finally got fed up and quit, and I never regretted it. The funny thing is that my chronic heartburn that I had when I worked there is almost gone now. I've been told that the worry lines in my face have disappeared. I've lost 20 pounds without even trying, and I feel great. It has led me to the opportunity to fulfill a longtime dream and return to college. I can truly say that, even thought I have some concerns about income and health care, I've never been happier in my life.

That job was just one of the events that have shaped my thinking, but not everyone could do what I have done. Not many people would give up the paycheck or the benefits even though they might hate their job or their employer. They don't realize that they could change if they want to. I feel sorry for them, because they aren't really free.

I don't have much sympathy for the big corporations. The executives take care of themselves, and the wage earners are a commodity to be used up and thrown away.

[binectar]

Sad, 12 volt, that the lessons of history, even recent history, seem lost on so many. Perhaps we should look at how the Ronald Regan era served Bill Clinton so well. Too many attribute the successes of Clinton to his policies. They never seem to grasp the fact that, because of the relatively solitary nature of the office, most of the policies foisted by the Presidency don't "take hold" and reap rewards until later presidents are in office. You might also choose to look relatively (not selectively) at the history, and in which paradigm it existed, of WWII.

I'm sad for our nation and the world that so many Americans- to whom the entire world looks (despite the opinion of many Americans) - seem desperate to serve only themselves. I hope you will understand my meaning - but war is war. Choosing to ignore it because the nature of the manner in which it is waged is nothing short of absolute foolishness!

Unfortunately, at some point in one's life, one has to accept the fact that attaining an "ideal" world involves ones own particular beliefs. It's sad, but allowing for the acceptance of ALL beliefs will never...NEVER...work!

Think about it...think about what people believe. Do you really think they would (if given the opportunity) accept those different from their own? Yes, I include those from our own nation who are intolerant of others. No, they would only tolerate until they had the opportunity to impose their own on everyone. (Look in the mirror before you respond)

Our system may not be perfect, but it is the best in the world, so far. I urge you to criticize only if you're willing to put your money where you mouth is.

By the way, I congratulate you for expressing an opinion! It's one of the wonderful things about America...you are actually free to express it!

Just remember...responsibility doesn't stop at our borders. It never stops.

[alaskacouple]

Just a few updates on our conversation;

1)As of today another FINE US industrial giant has been in the news; Merck (the giant pharmaceutical company) has decided to settle for $650,000,000.00 in a case of fraudulent price fixing of two of it's medications which defrauded the Medicare system of several billion dollars.

2)A bit more thought regarding the United States decision to unleash nuclear weapons on civilian targets in Japan at the end of the Pacific War in 1945;

a)The total estimated US military death count in the Pacific arena is approximately 106,200.

b)The results of CONVENTIONAL strategic fire bombing on Japan prior to the dropping of the nuclear weapons was described by Gen. Haywood S. Hansell this way; "...on the basis of photo coverage, intelligence estimates that 175 square miles of urban area in 66 cities were wiped out. Total civilian casualties stemming directly from the urban attacks were estimated at 330,000 killed, 476,000 injured, 9,200,000 rendered homeless."

c)The result of the NUCLEAR bombing are estimated at; 180,000 civilians killed in Hiroshima, and 80,000 killed in Nagasaki.

This does not mean to imply that the US was not wrongly attacked (the Japanese attacked our military base at Pearl Harbor) and we certainly had the right and the obligation to retaliate. That is not the point. The point is that many, many top ranking military leaders of the day said of the nuclear attacks on civilians that they did little to expedite the ultimate surrender of the Japanese. (these statements are historical fact). The point is that a good argument can be made that the US is in fact not the peace loving benefactor of the world. I think the native American peoples would say no, I think the men, women and children incinerated in Japan would say no, I think the children in Viet Nam who where incinerated with our napalm would say no, and I think many of the people in Iraq would say no. In fact I think a good argument could be made that the US has murdered more innocent civilians in our 'holy' wars that any other nation on earth. And that hurts me to the core.

To lock step into a belief that our government is always right regardless of the action, is no different than the very thing many here in America say that our enemies do.

And regarding the 'creation of an new Iraq'; To think that we have the right to enforce a misguided social experiment aimed at forcing a democratic nation on the people of Iraq is the epitome of a totalitarian conquering nation - these are tha actions of a nation intent upon replicating itself across the globe (much like the Nazis and the Japanese and many other failed efforts throughout history).

It is NEVER unpatriotic to question our government, too many have died for that very right. It is the weak and simple of mind who accept corruption and evil without thought or action while wrapping themselves in the stars and stripes and quoting 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'. Always question authority and be ever wary of unrestrained power.

PS- not sure what this has to do with the budget, except perhaps that it's going to bankrupt us if we don't stop it.

[vittoria]

Most of us who are employed dont have to "put your money where your mouth is" (this isnt Vegas, this is real life)... money leaves our hands before it even hits our mouths in the form of taxes. As long as we pay taxes and live in this country, we have the right the criticize as much as we see fit... at least until the NSA says otherwise...

The idea of our "system" is the best in the world. It's swiftly degenerating into something that the "founding fathers" didnt intend. Greed has taken over, and the pen, which is allegedly mightier than the sword, is rather poisoned, and the red tape is getting stickier by the second.

:2cents:

[bisexualinsocal]

Considering your knowledge & skill level in debating politics I can see why you wanted it banned.

:D

The personal attacks abound. That's ok, I'll continue in my support to the goodness of the American spirit.

[bisexualinsocal]

Sad, 12 volt, that the lessons of history, even recent history, seem lost on so many. Perhaps we should look at how the Ronald Regan era served Bill Clinton so well. Too many attribute the successes of Clinton to his policies. They never seem to grasp the fact that, because of the relatively solitary nature of the office, most of the policies foisted by the Presidency don't "take hold" and reap rewards until later presidents are in office. You might also choose to look relatively (not selectively) at the history, and in which paradigm it existed, of WWII.

I'm sad for our nation and the world that so many Americans- to whom the entire world looks (despite the opinion of many Americans) - seem desperate to serve only themselves. I hope you will understand my meaning - but war is war. Choosing to ignore it because the nature of the manner in which it is waged is nothing short of absolute foolishness!

Unfortunately, at some point in one's life, one has to accept the fact that attaining an "ideal" world involves ones own particular beliefs. It's sad, but allowing for the acceptance of ALL beliefs will never...NEVER...work!

Think about it...think about what people believe. Do you really think they would (if given the opportunity) accept those different from their own? Yes, I include those from our own nation who are intolerant of others. No, they would only tolerate until they had the opportunity to impose their own on everyone. (Look in the mirror before you respond)

Our system may not be perfect, but it is the best in the world, so far. I urge you to criticize only if you're willing to put your money where you mouth is.

By the way, I congratulate you for expressing an opinion! It's one of the wonderful things about America...you are actually free to express it!

Just remember...responsibility doesn't stop at our borders. It never stops.

Thank you for saying it. I too find that those who are hyper critical of America are usually cases of classic psychological projection. They project their own self-suspicion onto America. They project their own feelings of inadequacy onto America. To them, the only motives in life are greed, anger and hatred and of course, the whole world is in on it.

Money can never be trusted, people can never be trusted, the truth can never be trusted.

It must truly be tough to live that kind of life. Suspicious of everything and everyone........ unless he lives out of a shopping cart.

[DC_looking]

I guess my thought, as illogical as it may seem to the educated masses with whom I have shared discourse, is that our founding fathers as benighted and benevolent as they have been portrayed in our long national mythology sough to limit participation in our Government. They represented the wealthy amongst the American population. The signers, to a one, were land owners. In fact, voting was restricted to white male land owners. Women were excluded from voting as were native Americans and, of course, slaves. That is as bold a play and maintaining wealth and power as any other Government. Hardly unique but hardly a noble departure from the norm.

And, I think it is obvious since not everyone is equally wealthy, that the flow of wealth is institutionally limited (i.e., Bush's tax cuts). And the notion that wealth is amassed by hard work is spurious at best. Much of today's nouveau rich are enjoying inherited wealth and the guys that ran Enron and similar crooked companies simply stole the wealth of others. Certainly there are instances of individuals who have created value and wealth I am not disputing that but that is merely a blip it does not alter the fact that the Government is in place to support the wealthy. Also, look at who runs for President: by and large wealthy people. John McCain has assets of $36 Million, Hilary Clinton has assets of between $10 Million and $50 Million, John Edwards has assets of $29 Million, Mitt Romney: $250 Million, Guliana somewhere between $18 Million and $70 Million. These numbers come from the Federal Election Commission (FEC). These are hardly examples of the American everyman.

I could go on but I've made my point as best I can. There is compelling evidence through history of the function of Government. I am not singling out the US Government either. The British Empire, the Dutch, the Spanisn, the Portugese, the French all behaved in the same manner.

[bisexualinsocal]

I guess my thought, as illogical as it may seem to the educated masses with whom I have shared discourse, is that our founding fathers as benighted and benevolent as they have been portrayed in our long national mythology sough to limit participation in our Government. They represented the wealthy amongst the American population. The signers, to a one, were land owners. In fact, voting was restricted to white male land owners. Women were excluded from voting as were native Americans and, of course, slaves. That is as bold a play and maintaining wealth and power as any other Government. Hardly unique but hardly a noble departure from the norm.

And, I think it is obvious since not everyone is equally wealthy, that the flow of wealth is institutionally limited (i.e., Bush's tax cuts). And the notion that wealth is amassed by hard work is spurious at best. Much of today's nouveau rich are enjoying inherited wealth and the guys that ran Enron and similar crooked companies simply stole the wealth of others. Certainly there are instances of individuals who have created value and wealth I am not disputing that but that is merely a blip it does not alter the fact that the Government is in place to support the wealthy. Also, look at who runs for President: by and large wealthy people. John McCain has assets of $36 Million, Hilary Clinton has assets of between $10 Million and $50 Million, John Edwards has assets of $29 Million, Mitt Romney: $250 Million, Guliana somewhere between $18 Million and $70 Million. These numbers come from the Federal Election Commission (FEC). These are hardly examples of the American everyman.

I could go on but I've made my point as best I can. There is compelling evidence through history of the function of Government. I am not singling out the US Government either. The British Empire, the Dutch, the Spanisn, the Portugese, the French all behaved in the same manner.



Dude seriously. If the founding fathers wanted to prohibit wealth from the masses, they'd have done what the Europeans did for 4 hundred years and that is this-

Only nobles and lords can own land.


Since there aren't any nobles or lords around, I guess America is a different system. There are no nobles, no lords, no whites, no blacks, no mexicans.... There is only rich people and poor people. The rich have opportunities to be poor and the poor people (get ready kids, here is the best part) have an opportunity to be rich!

Once you accept that reality, the gloves are off and you're ready to go out and conquer the world. That's really the whole point. Own your future, stop using the defense mechanisms of "corporations are greedy", "I worship the illuminati", "America=bad". You're just using that shit to cover your own feelings of inadequacy.

[vittoria]

I guess my thought, as illogical as it may seem to the educated masses with whom I have shared discourse, is that our founding fathers as benighted and benevolent as they have been portrayed in our long national mythology sough to limit participation in our Government. They represented the wealthy amongst the American population. The signers, to a one, were land owners. In fact, voting was restricted to white male land owners. Women were excluded from voting as were native Americans and, of course, slaves. That is as bold a play and maintaining wealth and power as any other Government. Hardly unique but hardly a noble departure from the norm.

And, I think it is obvious since not everyone is equally wealthy, that the flow of wealth is institutionally limited (i.e., Bush's tax cuts). And the notion that wealth is amassed by hard work is spurious at best. Much of today's nouveau rich are enjoying inherited wealth and the guys that ran Enron and similar crooked companies simply stole the wealth of others. Certainly there are instances of individuals who have created value and wealth I am not disputing that but that is merely a blip it does not alter the fact that the Government is in place to support the wealthy. Also, look at who runs for President: by and large wealthy people. John McCain has assets of $36 Million, Hilary Clinton has assets of between $10 Million and $50 Million, John Edwards has assets of $29 Million, Mitt Romney: $250 Million, Guliana somewhere between $18 Million and $70 Million. These numbers come from the Federal Election Commission (FEC). These are hardly examples of the American everyman.

I could go on but I've made my point as best I can. There is compelling evidence through history of the function of Government. I am not singling out the US Government either. The British Empire, the Dutch, the Spanisn, the Portugese, the French all behaved in the same manner.

Verily... as I keep reiterating.."black" people have to have their right to vote checked on every 20 years... no other minority, naturalized citizen, or immigrant has to go through that, whether irish in descent, italian, hebrew, or hispanic. So, its not like everyone is guaranteed a fair "shake".

[vittoria]

Once you accept that reality, the gloves are off and you're ready to go out and conquer the world. That's really the whole point. Own your future, stop using the defense mechanisms of "corporations are greedy", "I worship the illuminati", "America=bad". You're just using that shit to cover your own feelings of inadequacy.

Dude, seriously. The only thing anyone said is that "corporations are greedy." Which they are... or else they wouldnt get bent out of shape over a .5 margin in the stock market... and they wouldnt be so bent to get McDonald's into the far reaches of the universe. These are facts.

Now, I'm still trying to see who in here worship the illuminati...(looking for that quote... alas, to no avail.) I havent seen "America= bad", either. Dont know what you're reading.

Name calling? Telling people the only ones that are disagreeing with you live out of shopping carts?

HERE:

Quote:
Originally Posted by binectar
Sad, 12 volt, that the lessons of history, even recent history, seem lost on so many. Perhaps we should look at how the Ronald Regan era served Bill Clinton so well. Too many attribute the successes of Clinton to his policies. They never seem to grasp the fact that, because of the relatively solitary nature of the office, most of the policies foisted by the Presidency don't "take hold" and reap rewards until later presidents are in office. You might also choose to look relatively (not selectively) at the history, and in which paradigm it existed, of WWII.

I'm sad for our nation and the world that so many Americans- to whom the entire world looks (despite the opinion of many Americans) - seem desperate to serve only themselves. I hope you will understand my meaning - but war is war. Choosing to ignore it because the nature of the manner in which it is waged is nothing short of absolute foolishness!

Unfortunately, at some point in one's life, one has to accept the fact that attaining an "ideal" world involves ones own particular beliefs. It's sad, but allowing for the acceptance of ALL beliefs will never...NEVER...work!

Think about it...think about what people believe. Do you really think they would (if given the opportunity) accept those different from their own? Yes, I include those from our own nation who are intolerant of others. No, they would only tolerate until they had the opportunity to impose their own on everyone. (Look in the mirror before you respond)

Our system may not be perfect, but it is the best in the world, so far. I urge you to criticize only if you're willing to put your money where you mouth is.

By the way, I congratulate you for expressing an opinion! It's one of the wonderful things about America...you are actually free to express it!

Just remember...responsibility doesn't stop at our borders. It never stops.

bisexualinsocal:
Thank you for saying it. I too find that those who are hyper critical of America are usually cases of classic psychological projection. They project their own self-suspicion onto America. They project their own feelings of inadequacy onto America. To them, the only motives in life are greed, anger and hatred and of course, the whole world is in on it.

Money can never be trusted, people can never be trusted, the truth can never be trusted.

It must truly be tough to live that kind of life. Suspicious of everything and everyone........ unless he lives out of a shopping cart.




Are you Oralguy in disguise? I mean really. Having a different opinion means we have "feelings of inadequacy"? Tell that to the "hundreds of thousands" of people who have helped revolutionize this country with their differing opinions... and tell me which ones lived out of shopping carts! Thought you didnt like "tit for tat"....:wink: ( Being bisexual, I've come to enjoy both tits AND tats... but thats another post altogether :) )

Once again I draw everyone's attention to the fact that you dont like political threads....

Feb 5, 2008 , 6:26 PM #1
bisexualinsocal
Member

USA, California = Other Areas



Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 22 Request: Bar political threads

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've seen other message boards turn into a hate fest over politics and religion. Is this message board really a place for tit for tat political anger? I thought this was a message board for bisexual people? I don't know how others feel but I vote for leaving politics OUT of this forum.


And once again I suggest...

before you start making blanket statements in a post you want nothing to do with... maybe you should (drumroll please) quit while you're ahead, because you DONT know what you're talking about. You have no facts to support your rants, you already said you dont like political posts, yet you insist on flaming this one with unintelligible gibberish. I'm not flaming YOU, believe that... but everything you say in this topic is bogus. You cant prove anything, you havent proved anything, its as if you watched Fox News and said everything they said WORD FOR WORD. This is the Deep End of the pool my friend... and you're drowning. Take the "LifeSaver", and save yourself.


By the power of Truth,

V

[alaskacouple]

Well, looks like this thread has moved away from the question about the sustainability of our country's fiscal policy and onto a general discussion of conservative vs. liberal politics. Of course, this is somewhat like herding cats in that the end result is usually quite disappointing. It also gets boring pretty quickly since no one is actually saying much.

Let's try this; Does anyone have an opinion as to why the price of oil is at record levels? And what does this mean to our future as an independent nation?

[vittoria]

Well, looks like this thread has moved away from the question about the sustainability of our country's fiscal policy and onto a general discussion of conservative vs. liberal politics. Of course, this is somewhat like herding cats in that the end result is usually quite disappointing. It also gets boring pretty quickly since no one is actually saying much.

Let's try this; Does anyone have an opinion as to why the price of oil is at record levels? And what does this mean to our future as an independent nation?


Plenty of opinions...

Lets just upgrade to herding tigers :rolleyes:

[alaskacouple]

Plenty of opinions...

Lets just upgrade to herding tigers :rolleyes:

Now that just might be pretty damn exciting!

(but, I've never done anything like that - is that similar to "poking a tiger"? Seems that I have heard about that recently...hmmm, thinking it didn't turn out too good though...:eek:...I'll do it if you will, but you gotta go first.)

[wolfcamp]

Let's try this; Does anyone have an opinion as to why the price of oil is at record levels? And what does this mean to our future as an independent nation?

Funny that you should bring this up. Here is an op ed piece in the Christian Science Monitor that sums up the answer to your question pretty well. Today we spent almost a whole hour of one of my classes talking about this very subject.

Why the Saudis aren't lifting a finger to ease oil prices (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0206/p09s01-coop.html?page=1)

[nothings5d]

You know, I just realized a possibility of why bisexualinsocal's posts in this thread seem so wrong to me. It seems like he's the kind of person that has trouble separating two concepts that are often, but not always, linked. Someone talks about the government's job is to keep power where it is and he posts a response that seems to indicate he thought that person was saying the government's job is to keep wealth where it is. Someone posts saying how the government's job is to keep the people who are in power in power and he posts like that person said the government's job is to keep the people who aren't in power out of power.

Am I seeing this right, or have I gone crazy?:confused:

[wolfcamp]

You know, I just realized a possibility of why bisexualinsocal's posts in this thread seem so wrong to me. It seems like he's the kind of person that has trouble separating two concepts that are often, but not always, linked. Someone talks about the government's job is to keep power where it is and he posts a response that seems to indicate he thought that person was saying the government's job is to keep wealth where it is. Someone posts saying how the government's job is to keep the people who are in power in power and he posts like that person said the government's job is to keep the people who aren't in power out of power.

Am I seeing this right, or have I gone crazy?:confused:

Your view makes some sense, but I think it's more like, someone posts that one specific thing is wrong with America, and he posts back accusing that person of saying that America is all wrong.

[alaskacouple]

yup cause Alaska won't sell it's oil to the lower 48 and
Chaney has stock in IRAN and it keeps going up.

what else? oh bush? he's in on it too


Funny that you should bring this up. Here is an op ed piece in the Christian Science Monitor that sums up the answer to your question pretty well. Today we spent almost a whole hour of one of my classes talking about this very subject.

Why the Saudis aren't lifting a finger to ease oil prices (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0206/p09s01-coop.html?page=1)

Thank both of you for giving this some thought and a reply.

But, as I was listening to the Republican debates a while back, this very question was asked of all of the candidates. Of course they all had something to say about how we should develop other sources of power, and how we must stay strong and involved in the middle east in order to secure our needed resources - much of the same as we have heard for years.

But then Ron Paul said something that was so different and so enlightening that I think it worth repeating in summary; It is not that the price of oil has gone up, in fact in relative terms the price of oil is actually lower today that it has been at times in the past. What we are witnessing is the loss of value of our American currency. The true value of oil, gold, houses and goods of all kind are relatively stable, but we have seen a long and steady decline in the value of that thing we call money. The major problem with this is that we as working class Americans have not seen our quantity of this "money" keep pace with the amount needed to buy the same things we have always bought.

That is just a brief paraphrase of what he said, but wow! did he go over the heads of all of the other talkers on the stage. I am old enough to be able to go back and compare average wages to the average cost of cars, houses, food, etc.(if your old enough to remember, try it and apply a bit of simple math) What I discovered is that we were actually living better on $10,000 fifty years ago that we are on a $ 100,000 today. It is no mystery why it now takes two (or more) to support an average household. Oh, there are those who are doing much, much better - a very small group growing wealthy beyond need. But the average working class middle income American is working harder for less and falling behind a little bit more every day. And one major reason for this is the servicing of the interest on our own and our national debt.

IMHO, we have a huge and looming problem in this country with too much debt and no plan to stop the runaway spending spree we are all on both as individuals and as a nation. If we as individuals refuse to curb our appetites, we end up in bankruptcy - the same thing happens to nations who become borrowers without the means to repay.

[nothings5d]

Your view makes some sense, but I think it's more like, someone posts that one specific thing is wrong with America, and he posts back accusing that person of saying that America is all wrong.

Well, yeah, that too, but that's really the only thing of that type I've seen him do so that's a specific inability to separate small concepts from the large ones.