|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 14, 2004 18:20:25 GMT -5
*watches dana carvey walk into the room, dressed up as that church lady character*Hey Proudness, took the humor in good stride, but I much preferred Carvey's impersonation of President George H.W. Bush. That never failed to crack me up! Oh, btw, caught your pre-censored post.  But we all do what we can to support our candidate, and our point of view, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 14, 2004 18:56:18 GMT -5
"Hey Proudness, took the humor in good stride, but I much preferred Carvey's impersonation of President George H.W. Bush. That never failed to crack me up!"
that impression was simply awesome. it's been awhile, but i still remember how funny it was, though i never thought it was even CLOSE to an accurate reflection of bush sr.'s personality. bush sr. was a lot loss humorous, a lot more of a down-to-business kind of guy, in my opinion. i actually have some respect for him despite my political status, believe it or not! ... though i wouldn't want him as president again. just an economical thing, that's all. plus he always looks like he wants to kill people, and that makes me a bit uneasy.
"Oh, btw, caught your pre-censored post."
haha, sorry, it's just that i have a lot of hatred and discontent currently, and perhaps for the next four years. really a personal war, i must say.
"But we all do what we can to support our candidate, and our point of view, right?"
i sure hope so. as much as the recent history of this country pains me, i cannot take my frustrations out on people who choose to support the current president and his administration. do i hate this administration's actions over the past four years? yes, i do. but it is my personal philosophy to try to hate people's ACTIONS, not people themselves. it's tough. i bet if i could sit down with president bush, we'd have beers (i know he likes his booze), and one hell of a good time. but i just think more needs to be done for the middle class. i think more jobs need to be created. i think that 1.7 billion dollars should NOT have been taken out of the pell grant, which gave me the shot i needed at a college education. i believe in affirmative action (to a degree, probably not in its current state), i believe in stem-cell research, i believe in abortion (but NOT partial birth abortion), and i believe in war as being far from a first option when attempting to solve struggles with foreign nations.
but the MAIN reason why i've gotten so angry about the current president, the reason why i've become political, the reason why i will NOT shut up until someone points a gun at me... is that i, at first, thought i was a republican. there, i admit it. after 9/11, i was afraid as hell. i looked at airplanes passing by and got scared as shit. i heard any sort of noises and thought i heard gunshots or preparations for a nuclear explosion or anything of the like. i was frightened, i couldn't sleep sometimes, i couldn't live right. and now, i feel that i was lied to. yes, terrorism is a threat. yes, terrorists are awful people and deserve the death penalty. yes, osama bin laden is a SON of a FUCKING BITCH (there's someone i hate). but i feel like i was abused by fear tactics. i feel like i was manipulated into supporting an agenda that america does not need, that does not advance our country, that does not improve our chances of prosperity and happiness. for whatever reason, i agreed with everything they said. and all of a sudden... i disagree with a lot of it. it's weird, it's strange, i don't know what this is truly about. but i know i've been used. "fool me once, and..."... well, you get it.
okay, enough rambling, you get my drift. but i'm sure one could argue that this is a political thing, that all presidents and politicans do this. and that person would be right. but i have trouble believing politicians usually take advantage of people to this degree. it's one hell of a degree. such a degree that it would make satan want to jump into a pile of snowballs. ... just my opinion.
in conclusion, i don't hate republicans (i like john mccain especially, and i kinda like arnold... one hell of a lot more than gray davis, anyway), and i don't like all democrats (dennis kucinich, though a good man, is clueless). i just don't like being taken advantage of.
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 14, 2004 19:58:35 GMT -5
in conclusion, i don't hate republicans (i like john mccain especially, and i kinda like arnold... one hell of a lot more than gray davis, anyway), and i don't like all democrats (dennis kucinich, though a good man, is clueless). i just don't like being taken advantage of.
Read your last post Proud, much there and much I disagree with, and would like to argue/discuss/refute. Alas, on the way to bed tonight, working 24 hrs. tomorrow. Will try to get back to the rest of your post on Mon. You did give me an easy target right off the bat though...Dennis Kucinich. One wonders what the color of the sky is in his world...what a nut job. Said with a "wink" to Chris! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Aug 14, 2004 20:23:56 GMT -5
If I had it my way, no one would vote.
It all feels too familiar to another election that was progressing 4 years ago where we had to choose between Dummy #1, Dummy #2, and Dummy #3, who really didn't count cause we live in a 2 Dummy system.
What's my choice this election? I have the choice of voting for President Bush, who smirks so much it makes me want to vomit, or John Kerry, who is the new and improved robot running under the Democrat ticket. It's like bloody fucking hell...
I do know this much... neither is a bad man. President Bush has done a fine job as President, we just have completely different ideologies, and part of me thinks mine are far too optimist. Y'know, two weeks ago, I would have undoubtedly said that John Kerry would get my vote, but I've been a thinking. This is all way too big for my little brain to even comprehend, and my feelings about a person's actions all boil down to what their motive was. Was the war in Iraq to protect the Jewish state of Israel? Was it to protect our American lifestyle considering that oil isn't forever (and other countries not so accustomed to our lifestyle are now acquiring a taste for it, ie China)? Was it because he felt bad about all those poor oppressed Iraqi people? Was it because he thought it'd be funny to watch shit blow up? Was it because he believed there to be Weapons of Mass Destruction? Is it a combination of a few or all of the above? I mean, really, what's the motive here?
I don't like being lied to (and no, this isn't a clintonian way of lying considering no one got killed because Clinton was giving Monica pleasure with a cigar), or hell even being given part of the picture is bloody well annoying to me. I need to base my vote on something. I don't believe in war, but who fucking cares what I believe in? This is about who will do the best job for the nation, not for me.
As for John Kerry, well... Johnny, u got some 'splainin' to do. This guy is as wishy-washy as Gore was. All of his arm movements feel completely choreographed (did he meet with Madonna's choreographer), his speeches are filled with blah blah blah, and quite frankly, I think he's a douchebag. I sure do wish Wesley Clark got the nomination, at least then I'd have someone WORTH voting for.
And I sure do miss Clinton. No, not Mrs. Clinton, I miss Bill Clinton. At least that guy seemed to have some sort of real optimism for the country, even if his entire presidency was spent being hunted by them darn republicans. They sure hated that man. Maybe it's cause he could get laid and they couldn't. Bob Dole didn't do Viagra commercials for nothing... of course, I wouldn't get hard looking at his wife either.
Do I have a point?
Yeah, I'm 23 years old and neither of these men seem to have any sort of character or vision that appeals to me. They're just part of a corrupt system that we don't feel connected to...
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 14, 2004 22:02:14 GMT -5
I am so sure that Condi Rice will never be President that I pledge to sever a limb if it ever becomes reality. I will cut off my own leg or arm...I'll let Melon choose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 15, 2004 3:44:44 GMT -5
"much there and much I disagree with, and would like to argue/discuss/refute."
i knew that what i said was an invitation for quite the argument, and though i'm not really up for a debate, i'll respond with whatever comes to mind. i worked over 10 hours yesterday, so my sympathies!
and now for something completely different.
I'm George Dubya Bush, and I approve this message.
John Kerry on preventing AIDS...
"I voted for it, then I voted against it."
John Kerry on cancer research...
"I voted for it, then I voted against it."
John Kerry on Jack the Ripper...
"I voted for it, then I voted against it."
John Kerry on Genital Herpes
"I voted for it, then I voted against it."
John Kerry has his priorities. Are they the same as yours?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Aug 15, 2004 6:12:49 GMT -5
It was revealed yesterday (in the New York Times no less) that the Bush tax cuts HAVE had a positive effect on the economy. This cites recent data from the Congressional Business Office (CBO). Do you have a link to this New York Times article, Howe? Because it seems odd that anyone would be extoling the positive effect of Bush's tax cuts now – when the economic indicators have taken a turn for the worse in the last month – second quarter U.S. GDP numbers are being revised downwards, the July jobs report was way off, housing starts are down, trade deficit up, U.S. dollar falling, etc. etc. etc. Yet, listening to John-John spew their bullshit, you'd think the "tax cuts for the wealthy" robbed the middle class, robbed the government and robbed from programs. Couldn’t find that CBO report online but while I was searching for it I did come across a lot of reports that basically said the same thing as this one: Bush Tax Cuts Heavily Favor Rich, CBO Says – ReportsFri Aug 13, 2004 02:58 AM ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers on Friday. The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, John Kerry. The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times. In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report. Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post. The calculations, requested by congressional Democrats, confirm the long-held view by independent tax analysts that the tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, have heavily favored the wealthiest taxpayers, the Times said. Bush has said the cuts provided crucial support to the U.S. economy after the Sept. 11 attacks and the three-year decline in U.S. stocks. But Kerry, who wants to roll back the cuts for households whose incomes top $200,000 per year, has said the cuts did little for the economy, and helped cause the federal budget to swing from a more than $100 billion surplus in 2001 to a projected deficit exceeding $400 billion this year. The newspapers, citing the CBO report, said about two-thirds of the benefits from the cuts went to households in the top 20 percent, with an average income of $203,740. People in the lowest 20 percent of earnings, which averaged $16,620, saw their effective tax rate fall to 5.2 percent from 6.7 percent, though their average tax cut was only $250. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 15, 2004 6:39:21 GMT -5
But Kerry, who wants to roll back the cuts for households whose incomes top $200,000 per year, has said the cuts did little for the economy, and helped cause the federal budget to swing from a more than $100 billion surplus in 2001 to a projected deficit exceeding $400 billion this year. Has Kerry taken a stand, to anyone's knowledge, on making the "non-wealthy" tax cuts permanent? He's said he wants to roll back the tax cuts for the top income bracket, but I have not heard him say anything about making the cuts permanent for the others. So it seems to me that it's entirely possible that he could keep his campaign promises, do a double-hike on the wealthy, and let taxes go up on the rest of us by doing nothing about the expiration date on the current rates. |
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Aug 15, 2004 6:48:42 GMT -5
Good, the tax cuts were stupid in the first place. Let's go to war and spend tons of money, but we'll cut taxes, too. From a financial point of view it was RETARDED.
Heh. Retarded, just like President Bush.
*stop smirking at me, damnit*
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Aug 15, 2004 6:50:29 GMT -5
What's this?
What's this?
ambition makes makes you look pretty ugly
kicking squealing gucci little piggy
you don't remember...
you don't remember...
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 15, 2004 7:18:43 GMT -5
The Bush tax cuts were a smokescreen. What temperary good they did have worn off. It was big enough to get his rich buddies behind him and it was big enough to make the lower tax brackets think they had more money, but in the long run it hasn't done anything. Unemployment is still astronomical, untill people have jobs the enconomy will continue to decline. When people hear "tax break" they're like Pavlov's dog, poeple are generally selffish and neo- conservstives push that as part of the agenda.
" You've got alittle extra money in your pocket...go buy your self something nice and stop asking questions... what? I said we were safer didn't I? Look here's another fiver baby, go see a movie and let me run the country."
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Aug 15, 2004 7:45:57 GMT -5
My whole feeling about taxes goes like this...
In order for the rich to get wealthy, they have little guys like me working for them in order to make them wealthy. I go to a huge grocery store 5 days a week and provide a service for my employer, who does 1.4 million in sales a week. Per year, my employer makes about 15 million in pure profit. If you take that 15,000,000 and divide it by 500 (which I'm sure we have fewer employees than that, but it's what I'm using), he makes 30,000 per employee. Considering I bring home about 1/3 of that amount, I think that the people who are making mad money off of me deserve to pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than I do.
I also know that usiing the company I work for is retarded because that money gets invested back into the company, but I think it gets my point across. Rich people get rich off of the labor of lesser paid people.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 15, 2004 10:55:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 15, 2004 10:55:20 GMT -5
Hint: think baseball.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Aug 15, 2004 11:35:50 GMT -5
Well, I caught the supposed Indians-Pirates rivalry, which is pretty false considering they aren't in the same league and only even play each other every 3 years or so, but I'm not sure what the second one is.
|
|
