124 Reasons

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheDave@7 July 2003 - 11:59

ill have to look it up, but im still opposed to bush

---

Dave-

Let me perfectly clear-If you are against Bush, that is fine with me; I would NEVER berate or belittle you for that.

But-if you are going to do what Hypoluxa did (no debate, just something somebody put together which he found and then posted), I will call you, as I did him, on the cheapness of your tactical error; there are many here with opinions, but we are short on true debaters.

To truly relieve someone of their ignorance requires a bit of one's own thought. not just cutting and pasting what you "think" looks like a blunt instrument.

I want to see debate here; not name-calling and flaming (I have regretfully done a bit of this myself recently, with EBP), but nobody seems interested in real debate-it takes too much time, perhaps-I know I hate to go to work (which I must do in a bit) when a good thread is gonna take off while I'm gone, but I've had to develop a good bit of patience, too.

So-'til later, then.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamsey+7 July 2003 - 12:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey &#064; 7 July 2003 - 12:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@7 July 2003 - 17:55
I support George Bush&#39;s aid program to fight AIDS in Africa.

---

That&#39;s very good of him. He&#39;s spending &#036;200 million, which is brilliant.

He&#39;s also expected to spend &#036;250 million on his own re-election campaign...

Priorities?[/b][/quote]
Lamsey-

The figures are embarrassing at first blush, but the fact is, in the U.S., people own their money (which is why taxes are such a constant issue), and spend it as they please; if people want to support Dubya&#39;s re-election to the tune of &#036;250 million, who are you, or I, or anybody to tell them otherwise?

Election laws dictate campaign contributions go for the campaign in whose name they are donated; simple as that.

I know this will fly like a lead balloon with you, but should Bill Gates&#39; fortune be confiscated to fight the AIDS problem, just because he&#39;s got lots of cash? He is in the habit, at the moment, of spending "flippin&#39; great wodges of cash" on any number of charitable causes; should his ability to choose which causes be usurped by the government?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@7 July 2003 - 18:28
Lamsey-

The figures are embarrassing at first blush, but the fact is, in the U.S., people own their money (which is why taxes are such a constant issue), and spend it as they please; if people want to support Dubya&#39;s re-election to the tune of &#036;250 million, who are you, or I, or anybody to tell them otherwise?

Election laws dictate campaign contributions go for the campaign in whose name they are donated; simple as that.

I know this will fly like a lead balloon with you, but should Bill Gates&#39; fortune be confiscated to fight the AIDS problem, just because he&#39;s got lots of cash? He is in the habit, at the moment, of spending "flippin&#39; great wodges of cash" on any number of charitable causes; should his ability to choose which causes be usurped by the government?

---

I&#39;m certainly not suggesting that, although cropping off some of Bill Gates&#39; wealth sound like a brilliant idea to this cash-strapped student ;)

I just think that for such a great country with such laudable ideals, America could do more to help out the rest of the world. &#036;200 million isn&#39;t much, when you consider the scale of the African AIDS epidemic.
However, I am honestly uninformed as to how the US government handles its budget. Maybe &#036;200 million is a lot for an aid donation - it just doesn&#39;t seem like much compared to GWB&#39;s campaign fund.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamsey+7 July 2003 - 12:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey &#064; 7 July 2003 - 12:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@7 July 2003 - 18:28
Lamsey-

The figures are embarrassing at first blush, but the fact is, in the U.S., people own their money (which is why taxes are such a constant issue), and spend it as they please; if people want to support Dubya&#39;s re-election to the tune of &#036;250 million, who are you, or I, or anybody to tell them otherwise?

Election laws dictate campaign contributions go for the campaign in whose name they are donated; simple as that.

I know this will fly like a lead balloon with you, but should Bill Gates&#39; fortune be confiscated to fight the AIDS problem, just because he&#39;s got lots of cash? He is in the habit, at the moment, of spending "flippin&#39; great wodges of cash" on any number of charitable causes; should his ability to choose which causes be usurped by the government?

---

I&#39;m certainly not suggesting that, although cropping off some of Bill Gates&#39; wealth sound like a brilliant idea to this cash-strapped student ;)

I just think that for such a great country with such laudable ideals, America could do more to help out the rest of the world. &#036;200 million isn&#39;t much, when you consider the scale of the African AIDS epidemic.
However, I am honestly uninformed as to how the US government handles its budget. Maybe &#036;200 million is a lot for an aid donation - it just doesn&#39;t seem like much compared to GWB&#39;s campaign fund.[/b][/quote]
Moral relativity is the sand in the gears, here.

This very point is what is responsible for all the political squabbling here in the U.S.; if the politicians (all of them; in both parties) didn&#39;t owe their livelihoods as politicians to the distribution of tax revenue (how much they drag back to their districts), things could be more easily accorded proper funding.

An example: Medical Care is the eternal political football; the libs (if they had their way) would nationalize it, effectively dulling the "cutting edge" of medical research (no competition=no profit opportunity=no money for research=no breakthroughs) and we&#39;d have to also pay the exhorbitant costs of the attendent bureaucracy (bureaucratic costs approach 85% of revenue income in some cases).

The conservative side opposes this for the same reasons.

The irony is, if this issue were ever resolved, ALL of the politicians lose their raison d`etre, a fact which is not lost on them.

The fact is, there is enough money wasted in government bureaucracy to pay off our debt, provide free medical care and prescription drugs. etc., etc.,.... but the pols won&#39;t spend responsibly.

We are beset by incredible greed, and a system which accomodates and winks at this behavior.

THAT is the bottom line.

So what you&#39;re saying is that the US suffers from being at the extreme end of Capitalism?

Could this perhaps explain the widespread dislike of the US in poorer countries, especially those with socialist or ocmmunist governments?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamsey@7 July 2003 - 13:20
So what you&#39;re saying is that the US suffers from being at the extreme end of Capitalism?

Could this perhaps explain the widespread dislike of the US in poorer countries, especially those with socialist or ocmmunist governments?

---

Like this, though:

Yes we are at the extreme end of capitalism, but the system will perpetuate itself to the point of revolt-if this occurs, however, do not assume we will "loose our grip."

We will go on.

Socialist and communist governments should realize they can never get to where we are (power and influence-wise) by following those roads (1); and (2) the lesson therein is not "Evil Capitalism", but rather, Evil Politicians.

Thus endeth the lesson. ;) :D B)

Although a lot of those points are personal opinions in the original post (especially near the end)...Im sure that over 10% could be proven.

We all know about Kioto Agreement and the ICC for example as being true (so there is over 1.5% as a starter ;) )

There were also a number of "appointed" near the start...these could be checked relatively easily, and also Election Pledges that have been abandoned could easily be checked.

I think if he just "proves" these points...easily done i should think, our spammer has beaten j2k4&#39;s challenge.

Go for it.... ;)

more than half of those are BS :rolleyes:

damn liberals.

The challenge was to Prove 10% ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@7 July 2003 - 11:40
The challenge was to Prove 10% ;)

---

ah ic now, well i would very much like to see 10% proved, however i believe it would be impossible :)