<strong>Groverat, yes I really believe that. The US is a target of terrorist attacks because people hate us. The more people that hate us, the more people who will target us. I'm not saying we need to be weak and obsequious. I'm saying we need be an unwavering example of what is right and wrong, and pre-emptive war, economic sanctions and general global bullying is counterproductive to that goal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So those are the 3 things that caused terrorists to hate us enough to commit the atrocities of 9/11?
I'm just trying to get a handle on your logic, because following your train of thought Bush is setting us up for something worse than that. Am I getting close? Because that was the national policy for Iraq for the last 8 years.
This isn't pre-emptive war. Where do you get the idea that it's pre-emptive war? There isn't even a war yet, I don't know where you get this idea.
[quote]<strong>I'm not saying that Ariel Sharon has killed more people than Saddam Hussein, but he has definitely killed more people than Saddam Hussein has in the last five years. That is an undeniable fact.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm skeptical, give me some rough estimates and where you get the logic.
<strong>Furthermore, I was hell on Trent Lott too. Why would I be any easier on Byrd?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry Spaceman, but this does not indicate a consistent approach. To my knowledge, Byrd has not made any recent statements defending or praising past racist attitudes. Trent Lott did. To have been consistent you would have had to raise Trent Lott's past racist record to discredit anything he said - on any topic - even prior to his recent comments. You would also have to discredit everything said by many other old guard politicians, Republican and Democrat.
Groverat has asked a couple of times if any of us can name some terrible things that Bush has actually done. That's a fair question, and I don't think that anyone has fully answered him on it. Although there have been some general references to this President's miserable record, Groverat has indicated that he wants more detail. Fair enough. Here is a small sample of a few of the many disastrous policies and decisions by President Bush and his administration:
In response to a serious economic slowdown, Bush has put forward economic plans and policies that amount to nothing much more than tax cuts for the very wealthy. These have been inneffective in stimulating the economy and have shifted the relative tax burden onto the lower classes
Bush has greatly increased the general military budget, even thought the US already spends much more on the military than other countries combined and more than enough to meet its general military commitments.
Bush has raided the US Treasury in order to pay for the above two unnecessary and ineffective policies, turning a substantial goverment surplus into a very substantial budget deficit in only two years and imperilling the US government finances.
While portraying himself as an 'Education' president, he has undermined the federal and state ability to pay for public education and has actually cut back on a number of federal initiatives related to education, including funding for libraries.
While occaisonally trying to portray himself as sensitive to the environment, Bush has cut funding to the EPA, has revoked or has proposed to revoke numerous environmental regulations, has put forward plans to open huge tracts of environmentally senstive lands to oil, gas and coal exploration, and has revoked US support for the Kyoto Protocol.
Bush has failed to make any progress on the vital issue of peace in Israel and Palestine. While he occaisionally mouths rhetoric about a establishing a separate Palestinian state on the West Bank, he has quietly but clearly supported an Israli hardline approach and is head of an administration that caters to a right-wing fringe who explicitly oppose a Palestinian state and want to see the establishment of biblical Israel (as a precondition, in their view, for the coming of biblical Armageddon).
Has squandered international support for the United States and, in particular, for potentially necessary military action, by putting forward, in doctrine and practice, the right of the United States to act unilaterally.
Bush and his administration have gone out of their way to show contempt for international treaties, for the United Nations, and for any country that dares to even question its approach. While the Bush administration has worked through the United Nations when it suits its purposes, it actually has made a mockery of the UN process by clearly enunciating its intention to act as it sees fit regardless of the United Nations ultimately decides.
I could go on, but that will do for now. I think that this gives at least some taste of why I and many others are in despair about the Bush presidency.
I am, however, curious about the details of the conservative point of view. Conservatives: What, in your view, are the great achievements of the Bush presidency so far? I ask this in all honesty, as I really have not seen this explained. I might (or might not) disagree with your view of his achievements, but I would at least like to know what you think they are.
Sorry Spaceman, but this does not indicate a consistent approach. To my knowledge, Byrd has not made any recent statements defending or praising past racist attitudes. Trent Lott did. To have been consistent you would have had to raise Trent Lott's past racist record to discredit anything he said - on any topic - even prior to his recent comments. You would also have to discredit everything said by many other old guard politicians, Republican and Democrat.
<strong>Groverat has asked a couple of times if any of us can name some terrible things that Bush has actually done. That's a fair question, and I don't think that anyone has fully answered him on it. Although there have been some general references to this President's miserable record, Groverat has indicated that he wants more detail. Fair enough. Here is a small sample of a few of the many diastrous policies and decisions by President Bush and his administration:
In response to a serious economic slowdown, Bush has put forward economic plans and policies that amount to nothing much more than tax cuts for the very wealthy. These have been inneffective in stimulating the economy and have shifted the relative tax burden onto the lower classes
Bush has greatly increased the general military budget, even thought the US already spends much more on the military than other countries combined and more than enough to meet its military commitments.
Bush has raided the US Treasury in order to pay for the above two unnecessary and ineffective policies, turning a substatial goverment surplus into a very substantial budget deficit in only two years and imperilling the US government finances.
While portraying himself as an 'Education' president, he has undermined the federal and state ability to pay for public education and has actually cut back on a number of federal initiatives related to education, including funding for libraries.
While occaisonally trying to portray himself as senstive to the environment, Bush has cut funding to the EPA, has revoked or has proposed to revoke numerous environmental regulations, has put forward plans to open huge tracts of environmentally senstive lands to oil, gas and coal exploration, and has revoked US support for the Kyoto Protocol.
Bush has failed to make any progress on the vital issue of peace in Israel and Palestine. While he occaisionally mouths rhetoric about a establishing a separate Palestinian state on the West Bank, he has quietly but clearly supported an Israli hardline approach and is head of an administration that caters to a right-wing fringe who explicitly oppose a Palistinian state and want to see the establishment of biblical Israel (as a precondition, in their view, for the coming of biblical Armageddon).
Has squandered international support for the United States and, in particular, for potentially necessary military action, by putting forward, in doctrine and practice, the right of the United States to act unilaterally.
Bush and his administration have gone out of their way to show contempt for international treaties, for the United Nations, and for any country that dares to even question its approach. While the Bush administration has worked through the United Nations when it suits its purposes, it has made a mockery of the UN process by clearly enunciating its intention to act as it sees fit regardless of the United Nations ultimately decides.
I could go on, but that will do for now. I think that gives at least some taste of why I and many others are in despair about the Bush presidency.
I am, however, curious about the details of the conservative point of view. Conservatives: What, in your view, are the great achievements of the Bush presidency so far? I ask this in all honesty, as I really have not seen this explained. I might (or might not) disagree with your view of his achievements, but I would at least like to know what you think they are.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The sad thing is the hard liners won't see this as they have Bush colored glasses on. They won't see it .......that is until the next election.
[quote]<strong>In response to a serious economic slowdown, Bush has put forward economic plans and policies that amount to nothing much more than tax cuts for the very wealthy. These have been inneffective in stimulating the economy and have shifted the relative tax burden onto the lower classes</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whose taxes have gone up? I'm not seeing the burden.
So the economy is slumping, big deal. I'm about to have to go out into the job market and it's bleak but it's short-sighted and just plain silly to blame Bush for the economy.
[quote]<strong>Bush has greatly increased the general military budget, even thought the US already spends much more on the military than other countries combined and more than enough to meet its general military commitments.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that's a good thing.
[quote]<strong>Bush has raided the US Treasury in order to pay for the above two unnecessary and ineffective policies, turning a substantial goverment surplus into a very substantial budget deficit in only two years and imperilling the US government finances.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Show me a president who doesn't overspend. Was the surplus real or merely projected?
[quote]<strong>While portraying himself as an 'Education' president, he has undermined the federal and state ability to pay for public education and has actually cut back on a number of federal initiatives related to education, including funding for libraries.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Source please.
Anyway we're looking for disaster issues, not politick gripes.
[quote]<strong>While occaisonally trying to portray himself as sensitive to the environment, Bush has cut funding to the EPA, has revoked or has proposed to revoke numerous environmental regulations, has put forward plans to open huge tracts of environmentally senstive lands to oil, gas and coal exploration, and has revoked US support for the Kyoto Protocol.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So how many lovely nations have taken the Kyoto protocol to heart?
[quote]<strong>Bush has failed to make any progress on the vital issue of peace in Israel and Palestine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, because that was just around the corner from being solved. His stance is no different from the previous administration's. This is same-old, same-old and absolutely not unique to Bush.
[quote]<strong>Has squandered international support for the United States and, in particular, for potentially necessary military action, by putting forward, in doctrine and practice, the right of the United States to act unilaterally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We have a lot of international support (growing daily (Mexico and Russia today came on board)) there is absolutely no indication at all of unilateral action. We have a whole coalition of folks willing to go with us.
[quote]<strong>Bush and his administration have gone out of their way to show contempt for international treaties,</strong><hr></blockquote>
Par for the course. He's a US president, that's what he's supposed to do. He'll piss of European Steel, Clinton pisses off Canadian Salmon. Par for the course.
[quote]<strong>for the United Nations, and for any country that dares to even question its approach. While the Bush administration has worked through the United Nations when it suits its purposes, it actually has made a mockery of the UN process by clearly enunciating its intention to act as it sees fit regardless of the United Nations ultimately decides.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The UN process makes a mockery of itself if there's a mockery at all. Spineless members and toothless resolutions aren't Bush's fault.
The UN process makes a mockery of itself if there's a mockery at all. Spineless members and toothless resolutions aren't Bush's fault.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You really just don't get it do you? Or don't want to. Clinton may not have been perfect but for 8yrs. things were a lot better for the average american ( and please don't give me that coincidence BS ).
Things are bad out there if you don't have a job. And even if you do it might not last thanks to the sagging economy. And while economic times are cyclic Bush has done nothing to help this. As a matter of fact his policy of war and mismangement have made it worse.
It also makes those other U.N. members not trust us. I know you probably think america should be capitol of the world. Get real.
Why do you think interest rates are at a thirty year low? Lets say that again a thirty year low.
But, don't believe me. Open the newspaper.
Thumbing our nose at the rest of the world isn't par for the course.
I know one thing in two years americans will make their judgement. I don't think Bush will be in office after that.
g'rat, don't worry about finding a job come graduation...you are young...you can easily join the largest growing job market we will have...the military will be looking for good, smart young man like you...how better to show your support of bush and a war in iraq
Whose taxes have gone up? I'm not seeing the burden.
<hr></blockquote>
The bills will have to be paid. Even moderate conservatives understand this (and that's why they are starting to become very concerned about the deficit), You, Groverat, apparently do not understand this simple point.
[quote]So the economy is slumping, big deal.<hr></blockquote>
I think that those concerned would be - among others - the family without health coverage where one or more wage earners have lost their jobs. "Big deal" was, incidentally, George Senior's view, and it cost him his job.
[quote]I think that's a good thing.<hr></blockquote>
So you think that military spending beyond what is needed for military commitments is a good thing. I guess that says something about your priorities.
[quote] Show me a president who doesn't overspend. Was the surplus real or merely projected? <hr></blockquote>
The surplus left by the previous President was actual.
[quote] So how many lovely nations have taken the Kyoto protocol to heart?<hr></blockquote>
Quite a few actually, including my own.
[quote]His stance is no different from the previous administration's.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, the present administration has been far less active in trying to get the two sides at the table and more supportive of an Israli hardline position.
[quote] We have a lot of international support (growing daily (Mexico and Russia today came on board)) there is absolutely no indication at all of unilateral action. We have a whole coalition of folks willing to go with us. <hr></blockquote>
The US doctrine advanced by Bush is explicit in its right for US unilateral action. As it currently stands, you are unlikely to win a vote at the Security Council. And those few governments that support you do not have the support of their populations.
Also, Groverat, you did not take me up on my challange re achievements of the Bush administration.
And incidentally, I do not hate Americans. I do, however, intensely disagree with immoral, right-wing morons. We have a lot of them in Canada too.
I could only find <a href="http://www.ssb.no/vis/emner/12/01/10/uhjelpoecd/main.html"; target="_blank">norwegian statistics</a>, but even though the US contributed 11,4 billion dollars in foreign aid in 2001, making it the worlds largest aid-contributer, this only constitutes 0,11 percent of the GNP, or 40 bucks pr. american head.
Norway gave 1,3 billion dollars in aid in 2001, equating 0,83 percent of the GNP or 289 dollars pr. person.
Only Denmark tops this with 1,03 percent of their GNP, or 302 dollars per head.
France, Germany, Denmark and Norway alone (of European countries) contribute more Aid together than the US, with over 100 million less people.
Well I guess that's mate. You couldn't provide any substance to counter any of the arguments pertaining to the topic. Debate like chess is based on logic and has certain rules you have to adhere to...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There was nothing particularly new about Byrd's comments. It's absurd to imagine that I can't counter his arguments. I've done so in other theads in other contexts. I chose not to discuss what Byrd said. I gave my reasons why. You can't accept that - not my problem.
It's absurd to imagine that I can't counter his arguments. I've done so in other theads in other contexts. I chose not to discuss what Byrd said. I gave my reasons why. You can't accept that - not my problem.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There was nothing particularly new about Byrd's comments. It's absurd to imagine that I can't counter his arguments. I've done so in other theads in other contexts. I chose not to discuss what Byrd said. I gave my reasons why. You can't accept that - not my problem.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair enough. We accept that you are a genius who can easily counter these arguments, but don't have the time to summarize your previous points.
However, moving beyond the issue of you countering criticism of the Bush administration failures, will none of you conservatives rise to the challange of providing some positive details of what you think are the Bush administration's achievements? I am actually quite curious about your views on this.
Sorry Spaceman, but this does not indicate a consistent approach. To my knowledge, Byrd has not made any recent statements defending or praising past racist attitudes. Trent Lott did. To have been consistent you would have had to raise Trent Lott's past racist record to discredit anything he said - on any topic - even prior to his recent comments. You would also have to discredit everything said by many other old guard politicians, Republican and Democrat.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, if I was inconsistent I'd have to be someone who expected you to listen to Trent Lott despite his retrograde views. I don't. I know he's damaged goods. Ditto for those other old guard politicians you alluded to. There are plenty of people who don't carry around this kind of baggage and who are more intellectually serious. The kind of racism that's behind the KKK, that condoned Jim Crow or is nostagic for the days of segregation is not just a moral defect but an intellectual one as well.
As for inconsistency what about this? Liberals and Democrtas are happy to cry "racism" whenever there is a political disagreement with Republicans that even touches on race and yet they embrace to embrace Byrd.
we liberals forgive bush for his alcoholic, coke snorting, c grades in college past...see, we forgive lots of stuff...many democrats worked with strom thurman even though he had a racist past...that is the wonderful thing about growth and learning and aging well...bush was a snot nosed coke snorting, booze swilling, dwi getting young man...now he is president.....
so for byrd, because of his past, i should never listen to what he has to say??
so then for bush (since his past is bad, but not as bad as byrd's) i should only half way listen to what he has to say???
<strong>It's so disappointing that you all can't see a purely partisan political speech when is presented to you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You continue to ignore the message because you don't like the messenger. Grow up. I'm glad people like you aren't running the country...oh crap...they are.
Liberals and Democrtas are happy to cry "racism" whenever there is a political disagreement with Republicans that even touches on race and yet they embrace to embrace Byrd.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, except this is a post about WAR, not racism....
No, if I was inconsistent I'd have to be someone who expected you to listen to Trent Lott despite his retrograde views. I don't. I know he's damaged goods. Ditto for those other old guard politicians you alluded to. There are plenty of people who don't carry around this kind of baggage and who are more intellectually serious. The kind of racism that's behind the KKK, that condoned Jim Crow or is nostagic for the days of segregation is not just a moral defect but an intellectual one as well.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You tread water well Spaceman, but you misunderstand my point. The question is whether you would expect me to discredit everything that Trent Lott said, on every subject, based on a past record of racsim (which he did have) even if he did not currently have those views. If so, then fine, you are being consistent. You would also be drawing a very hard line against those of previous generations.
The sad fact is that 40-50 years ago, and beyond, attitudes that we would now deem racist were not only considered acceptable in polite society, but were sometimes even enshrined as part of the law at both the federal and state level (The same was true in my country, by the way, although it manifested itself in different ways.) When they were young, my grandparents were probably racists by today's standards. However, I still listen to, and respect, things that they say.
In the end, I am far more interested in what people believe now. Trent Lott has failed this test. I am not sure that Senator Byrd has.
In the end, I am far more interested in what people believe now. Trent Lott has failed this test. I am not sure that Senator Byrd has.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure Byrd's views have changed with time. He is, after all, no longer a member of the KKK. (Let's set that bar high!) And maybe if he had another chance to vote for the Civil Rights Act, this time he'd vote "yes". And maybe if he had another opportunity to vote an African-American to the Supreme Court, this time he'd vote "yes". (Third time's a charm, you know.) And maybe now he's finally learned that the word "n****r" is not a nice word. Maybe now at age 85 he's learned at least that much. So what?
I'm sure Byrd's views have changed with time. He is, after all, no longer a member of the KKK. (Let's set that bar high!) And maybe if he had another chance to vote for the Civil Rights Act, this time he'd vote "yes". And maybe if he had another opportunity to vote an African-American to the Supreme Court, this time he'd vote "yes". (Third time's a charm, you know.) And maybe now he's finally learned that the word "n****r" is not a nice word. Maybe now at age 85 he's learned at least that much. So what?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Step 1: Copy Byrd's speech to your clipboard.
Step 2: Paste it into a new document.
Step 3: Write "by Anonymous."
Step 4: Read and analyze it based on its own merit (or possible lack thereof).
Comments
<strong>Groverat, yes I really believe that. The US is a target of terrorist attacks because people hate us. The more people that hate us, the more people who will target us. I'm not saying we need to be weak and obsequious. I'm saying we need be an unwavering example of what is right and wrong, and pre-emptive war, economic sanctions and general global bullying is counterproductive to that goal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So those are the 3 things that caused terrorists to hate us enough to commit the atrocities of 9/11?
I'm just trying to get a handle on your logic, because following your train of thought Bush is setting us up for something worse than that. Am I getting close? Because that was the national policy for Iraq for the last 8 years.
This isn't pre-emptive war. Where do you get the idea that it's pre-emptive war? There isn't even a war yet, I don't know where you get this idea.
[quote]<strong>I'm not saying that Ariel Sharon has killed more people than Saddam Hussein, but he has definitely killed more people than Saddam Hussein has in the last five years. That is an undeniable fact.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm skeptical, give me some rough estimates and where you get the logic.
I think you underestimate the suffering in Iraq.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>Furthermore, I was hell on Trent Lott too. Why would I be any easier on Byrd?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry Spaceman, but this does not indicate a consistent approach. To my knowledge, Byrd has not made any recent statements defending or praising past racist attitudes. Trent Lott did. To have been consistent you would have had to raise Trent Lott's past racist record to discredit anything he said - on any topic - even prior to his recent comments. You would also have to discredit everything said by many other old guard politicians, Republican and Democrat.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Chinney ]</p>
- In response to a serious economic slowdown, Bush has put forward economic plans and policies that amount to nothing much more than tax cuts for the very wealthy. These have been inneffective in stimulating the economy and have shifted the relative tax burden onto the lower classes
I could go on, but that will do for now. I think that this gives at least some taste of why I and many others are in despair about the Bush presidency.Bush has greatly increased the general military budget, even thought the US already spends much more on the military than other countries combined and more than enough to meet its general military commitments.
Bush has raided the US Treasury in order to pay for the above two unnecessary and ineffective policies, turning a substantial goverment surplus into a very substantial budget deficit in only two years and imperilling the US government finances.
While portraying himself as an 'Education' president, he has undermined the federal and state ability to pay for public education and has actually cut back on a number of federal initiatives related to education, including funding for libraries.
While occaisonally trying to portray himself as sensitive to the environment, Bush has cut funding to the EPA, has revoked or has proposed to revoke numerous environmental regulations, has put forward plans to open huge tracts of environmentally senstive lands to oil, gas and coal exploration, and has revoked US support for the Kyoto Protocol.
Bush has failed to make any progress on the vital issue of peace in Israel and Palestine. While he occaisionally mouths rhetoric about a establishing a separate Palestinian state on the West Bank, he has quietly but clearly supported an Israli hardline approach and is head of an administration that caters to a right-wing fringe who explicitly oppose a Palestinian state and want to see the establishment of biblical Israel (as a precondition, in their view, for the coming of biblical Armageddon).
Has squandered international support for the United States and, in particular, for potentially necessary military action, by putting forward, in doctrine and practice, the right of the United States to act unilaterally.
Bush and his administration have gone out of their way to show contempt for international treaties, for the United Nations, and for any country that dares to even question its approach. While the Bush administration has worked through the United Nations when it suits its purposes, it actually has made a mockery of the UN process by clearly enunciating its intention to act as it sees fit regardless of the United Nations ultimately decides.
I am, however, curious about the details of the conservative point of view. Conservatives: What, in your view, are the great achievements of the Bush presidency so far? I ask this in all honesty, as I really have not seen this explained. I might (or might not) disagree with your view of his achievements, but I would at least like to know what you think they are.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Chinney ]</p>
<strong>
Sorry Spaceman, but this does not indicate a consistent approach. To my knowledge, Byrd has not made any recent statements defending or praising past racist attitudes. Trent Lott did. To have been consistent you would have had to raise Trent Lott's past racist record to discredit anything he said - on any topic - even prior to his recent comments. You would also have to discredit everything said by many other old guard politicians, Republican and Democrat.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Chinney ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
In other words it's grasping at straws.
<strong>Groverat has asked a couple of times if any of us can name some terrible things that Bush has actually done. That's a fair question, and I don't think that anyone has fully answered him on it. Although there have been some general references to this President's miserable record, Groverat has indicated that he wants more detail. Fair enough. Here is a small sample of a few of the many diastrous policies and decisions by President Bush and his administration:
- In response to a serious economic slowdown, Bush has put forward economic plans and policies that amount to nothing much more than tax cuts for the very wealthy. These have been inneffective in stimulating the economy and have shifted the relative tax burden onto the lower classes
I could go on, but that will do for now. I think that gives at least some taste of why I and many others are in despair about the Bush presidency.Bush has greatly increased the general military budget, even thought the US already spends much more on the military than other countries combined and more than enough to meet its military commitments.
Bush has raided the US Treasury in order to pay for the above two unnecessary and ineffective policies, turning a substatial goverment surplus into a very substantial budget deficit in only two years and imperilling the US government finances.
While portraying himself as an 'Education' president, he has undermined the federal and state ability to pay for public education and has actually cut back on a number of federal initiatives related to education, including funding for libraries.
While occaisonally trying to portray himself as senstive to the environment, Bush has cut funding to the EPA, has revoked or has proposed to revoke numerous environmental regulations, has put forward plans to open huge tracts of environmentally senstive lands to oil, gas and coal exploration, and has revoked US support for the Kyoto Protocol.
Bush has failed to make any progress on the vital issue of peace in Israel and Palestine. While he occaisionally mouths rhetoric about a establishing a separate Palestinian state on the West Bank, he has quietly but clearly supported an Israli hardline approach and is head of an administration that caters to a right-wing fringe who explicitly oppose a Palistinian state and want to see the establishment of biblical Israel (as a precondition, in their view, for the coming of biblical Armageddon).
Has squandered international support for the United States and, in particular, for potentially necessary military action, by putting forward, in doctrine and practice, the right of the United States to act unilaterally.
Bush and his administration have gone out of their way to show contempt for international treaties, for the United Nations, and for any country that dares to even question its approach. While the Bush administration has worked through the United Nations when it suits its purposes, it has made a mockery of the UN process by clearly enunciating its intention to act as it sees fit regardless of the United Nations ultimately decides.
I am, however, curious about the details of the conservative point of view. Conservatives: What, in your view, are the great achievements of the Bush presidency so far? I ask this in all honesty, as I really have not seen this explained. I might (or might not) disagree with your view of his achievements, but I would at least like to know what you think they are.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The sad thing is the hard liners won't see this as they have Bush colored glasses on. They won't see it .......that is until the next election.
[quote]<strong>In response to a serious economic slowdown, Bush has put forward economic plans and policies that amount to nothing much more than tax cuts for the very wealthy. These have been inneffective in stimulating the economy and have shifted the relative tax burden onto the lower classes</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whose taxes have gone up? I'm not seeing the burden.
So the economy is slumping, big deal. I'm about to have to go out into the job market and it's bleak but it's short-sighted and just plain silly to blame Bush for the economy.
[quote]<strong>Bush has greatly increased the general military budget, even thought the US already spends much more on the military than other countries combined and more than enough to meet its general military commitments.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that's a good thing.
[quote]<strong>Bush has raided the US Treasury in order to pay for the above two unnecessary and ineffective policies, turning a substantial goverment surplus into a very substantial budget deficit in only two years and imperilling the US government finances.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Show me a president who doesn't overspend. Was the surplus real or merely projected?
[quote]<strong>While portraying himself as an 'Education' president, he has undermined the federal and state ability to pay for public education and has actually cut back on a number of federal initiatives related to education, including funding for libraries.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Source please.
Anyway we're looking for disaster issues, not politick gripes.
[quote]<strong>While occaisonally trying to portray himself as sensitive to the environment, Bush has cut funding to the EPA, has revoked or has proposed to revoke numerous environmental regulations, has put forward plans to open huge tracts of environmentally senstive lands to oil, gas and coal exploration, and has revoked US support for the Kyoto Protocol.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So how many lovely nations have taken the Kyoto protocol to heart?
[quote]<strong>Bush has failed to make any progress on the vital issue of peace in Israel and Palestine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, because that was just around the corner from being solved. His stance is no different from the previous administration's. This is same-old, same-old and absolutely not unique to Bush.
[quote]<strong>Has squandered international support for the United States and, in particular, for potentially necessary military action, by putting forward, in doctrine and practice, the right of the United States to act unilaterally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We have a lot of international support (growing daily (Mexico and Russia today came on board)) there is absolutely no indication at all of unilateral action. We have a whole coalition of folks willing to go with us.
[quote]<strong>Bush and his administration have gone out of their way to show contempt for international treaties,</strong><hr></blockquote>
Par for the course. He's a US president, that's what he's supposed to do. He'll piss of European Steel, Clinton pisses off Canadian Salmon. Par for the course.
[quote]<strong>for the United Nations, and for any country that dares to even question its approach. While the Bush administration has worked through the United Nations when it suits its purposes, it actually has made a mockery of the UN process by clearly enunciating its intention to act as it sees fit regardless of the United Nations ultimately decides.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The UN process makes a mockery of itself if there's a mockery at all. Spineless members and toothless resolutions aren't Bush's fault.
<strong>Wonderful.
The UN process makes a mockery of itself if there's a mockery at all. Spineless members and toothless resolutions aren't Bush's fault.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You really just don't get it do you? Or don't want to. Clinton may not have been perfect but for 8yrs. things were a lot better for the average american ( and please don't give me that coincidence BS ).
Things are bad out there if you don't have a job. And even if you do it might not last thanks to the sagging economy. And while economic times are cyclic Bush has done nothing to help this. As a matter of fact his policy of war and mismangement have made it worse.
It also makes those other U.N. members not trust us. I know you probably think america should be capitol of the world. Get real.
Why do you think interest rates are at a thirty year low? Lets say that again a thirty year low.
But, don't believe me. Open the newspaper.
Thumbing our nose at the rest of the world isn't par for the course.
I know one thing in two years americans will make their judgement. I don't think Bush will be in office after that.
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
much better than that journalism crap...
g
Whose taxes have gone up? I'm not seeing the burden.
<hr></blockquote>
The bills will have to be paid. Even moderate conservatives understand this (and that's why they are starting to become very concerned about the deficit), You, Groverat, apparently do not understand this simple point.
[quote]So the economy is slumping, big deal.<hr></blockquote>
I think that those concerned would be - among others - the family without health coverage where one or more wage earners have lost their jobs. "Big deal" was, incidentally, George Senior's view, and it cost him his job.
[quote]I think that's a good thing.<hr></blockquote>
So you think that military spending beyond what is needed for military commitments is a good thing. I guess that says something about your priorities.
[quote] Show me a president who doesn't overspend. Was the surplus real or merely projected? <hr></blockquote>
The surplus left by the previous President was actual.
[quote] So how many lovely nations have taken the Kyoto protocol to heart?<hr></blockquote>
Quite a few actually, including my own.
[quote]His stance is no different from the previous administration's.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, the present administration has been far less active in trying to get the two sides at the table and more supportive of an Israli hardline position.
[quote] We have a lot of international support (growing daily (Mexico and Russia today came on board)) there is absolutely no indication at all of unilateral action. We have a whole coalition of folks willing to go with us. <hr></blockquote>
The US doctrine advanced by Bush is explicit in its right for US unilateral action. As it currently stands, you are unlikely to win a vote at the Security Council. And those few governments that support you do not have the support of their populations.
Also, Groverat, you did not take me up on my challange re achievements of the Bush administration.
And incidentally, I do not hate Americans. I do, however, intensely disagree with immoral, right-wing morons. We have a lot of them in Canada too.
<strong>some stuff:
I could only find <a href="http://www.ssb.no/vis/emner/12/01/10/uhjelpoecd/main.html"; target="_blank">norwegian statistics</a>, but even though the US contributed 11,4 billion dollars in foreign aid in 2001, making it the worlds largest aid-contributer, this only constitutes 0,11 percent of the GNP, or 40 bucks pr. american head.
Norway gave 1,3 billion dollars in aid in 2001, equating 0,83 percent of the GNP or 289 dollars pr. person.
Only Denmark tops this with 1,03 percent of their GNP, or 302 dollars per head.
France, Germany, Denmark and Norway alone (of European countries) contribute more Aid together than the US, with over 100 million less people.
and then there is the conditions of aid:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/26/international/26PREX.html?ex=1039326769&ei=1&en=d89b8da102c7d6ee " target="_blank">Bush Plan Ties Foreign Aid to Free Market and Civic Rule</a>
(I'm not saying Germany and France are not bad in this apartment...)
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: New ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not worth commenting on?
<strong>
Well I guess that's mate. You couldn't provide any substance to counter any of the arguments pertaining to the topic. Debate like chess is based on logic and has certain rules you have to adhere to...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There was nothing particularly new about Byrd's comments. It's absurd to imagine that I can't counter his arguments. I've done so in other theads in other contexts. I chose not to discuss what Byrd said. I gave my reasons why. You can't accept that - not my problem.
<strong>
It's absurd to imagine that I can't counter his arguments. I've done so in other theads in other contexts. I chose not to discuss what Byrd said. I gave my reasons why. You can't accept that - not my problem.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Just thought I'd do that for you Jimmac....
<strong>
There was nothing particularly new about Byrd's comments. It's absurd to imagine that I can't counter his arguments. I've done so in other theads in other contexts. I chose not to discuss what Byrd said. I gave my reasons why. You can't accept that - not my problem.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair enough. We accept that you are a genius who can easily counter these arguments, but don't have the time to summarize your previous points.
However, moving beyond the issue of you countering criticism of the Bush administration failures, will none of you conservatives rise to the challange of providing some positive details of what you think are the Bush administration's achievements? I am actually quite curious about your views on this.
<strong>
Sorry Spaceman, but this does not indicate a consistent approach. To my knowledge, Byrd has not made any recent statements defending or praising past racist attitudes. Trent Lott did. To have been consistent you would have had to raise Trent Lott's past racist record to discredit anything he said - on any topic - even prior to his recent comments. You would also have to discredit everything said by many other old guard politicians, Republican and Democrat.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, if I was inconsistent I'd have to be someone who expected you to listen to Trent Lott despite his retrograde views. I don't. I know he's damaged goods. Ditto for those other old guard politicians you alluded to. There are plenty of people who don't carry around this kind of baggage and who are more intellectually serious. The kind of racism that's behind the KKK, that condoned Jim Crow or is nostagic for the days of segregation is not just a moral defect but an intellectual one as well.
As for inconsistency what about this? Liberals and Democrtas are happy to cry "racism" whenever there is a political disagreement with Republicans that even touches on race and yet they embrace to embrace Byrd.
so for byrd, because of his past, i should never listen to what he has to say??
so then for bush (since his past is bad, but not as bad as byrd's) i should only half way listen to what he has to say???
sigh....g
<strong>It's so disappointing that you all can't see a purely partisan political speech when is presented to you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You continue to ignore the message because you don't like the messenger. Grow up. I'm glad people like you aren't running the country...oh crap...they are.
<strong>
Liberals and Democrtas are happy to cry "racism" whenever there is a political disagreement with Republicans that even touches on race and yet they embrace to embrace Byrd.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, except this is a post about WAR, not racism....
<strong>
No, if I was inconsistent I'd have to be someone who expected you to listen to Trent Lott despite his retrograde views. I don't. I know he's damaged goods. Ditto for those other old guard politicians you alluded to. There are plenty of people who don't carry around this kind of baggage and who are more intellectually serious. The kind of racism that's behind the KKK, that condoned Jim Crow or is nostagic for the days of segregation is not just a moral defect but an intellectual one as well.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You tread water well Spaceman, but you misunderstand my point. The question is whether you would expect me to discredit everything that Trent Lott said, on every subject, based on a past record of racsim (which he did have) even if he did not currently have those views. If so, then fine, you are being consistent. You would also be drawing a very hard line against those of previous generations.
The sad fact is that 40-50 years ago, and beyond, attitudes that we would now deem racist were not only considered acceptable in polite society, but were sometimes even enshrined as part of the law at both the federal and state level (The same was true in my country, by the way, although it manifested itself in different ways.) When they were young, my grandparents were probably racists by today's standards. However, I still listen to, and respect, things that they say.
In the end, I am far more interested in what people believe now. Trent Lott has failed this test. I am not sure that Senator Byrd has.
<strong>
In the end, I am far more interested in what people believe now. Trent Lott has failed this test. I am not sure that Senator Byrd has.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure Byrd's views have changed with time. He is, after all, no longer a member of the KKK. (Let's set that bar high!) And maybe if he had another chance to vote for the Civil Rights Act, this time he'd vote "yes". And maybe if he had another opportunity to vote an African-American to the Supreme Court, this time he'd vote "yes". (Third time's a charm, you know.) And maybe now he's finally learned that the word "n****r" is not a nice word. Maybe now at age 85 he's learned at least that much. So what?
<strong>
I'm sure Byrd's views have changed with time. He is, after all, no longer a member of the KKK. (Let's set that bar high!) And maybe if he had another chance to vote for the Civil Rights Act, this time he'd vote "yes". And maybe if he had another opportunity to vote an African-American to the Supreme Court, this time he'd vote "yes". (Third time's a charm, you know.) And maybe now he's finally learned that the word "n****r" is not a nice word. Maybe now at age 85 he's learned at least that much. So what?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Step 1: Copy Byrd's speech to your clipboard.
Step 2: Paste it into a new document.
Step 3: Write "by Anonymous."
Step 4: Read and analyze it based on its own merit (or possible lack thereof).
Got it? Good.