Because I saw the interviews... Not a pessimistic cynic... A realistic one.
Which interviews? That is besides the point, the reason for the US going into Iraq and what people believe are the reasons for our entrance is why people also thought we just wanted oil. It goes both ways.
Cheney, and several other high level administration people were interviewed on tv last year at about the time that these polls came out...
Do you see my other point? It goes both ways. People may well have thought Saddam had something to do with 911, when indeed he did not. People also believed that we went to Iraq to seize and abuse oil, which indeed we did not do.
Yeah, the whole point is that Republicans want the american public to not be informed especially about things that might directly sway their opinions on policy issues.
Yeah, the whole point is that Republicans want the american public to not be informed especially about things that might directly sway their opinions on policy issues.
Now it comes clear, your voice now holds little weight with me and it should not with others. "R's want the public to not be informed..." WOW!
Yeah, the whole point is that Republicans want the american public to not be informed especially about things that might directly sway their opinions on policy issues.
Here is some Republican "informing." The door swings both ways, m' boy.
How is this so? Is John Kerry not trying to benefit from the anger wave in some of the classes and bolster himself into a position of power based on emotion and backwards thinking?
"We'll take some from here, move it over here, take that over there and build this up over here-ahhhh it all looks even now."---That is not the America I want to live in.
Yes, yes, and no.
Here are the core problems I have with your analysis:
1) that you believe having money and effecting social change are mutually exclusive. (logic)
2) that you blast "class warfare" only when the oppressed lower and middle classes engage in it. the reality is that your republican party antagonizes the lives of the poor as doctrine... regressive taxes, elimination of social security and welfare, welfare "reform," non-universal health care, elimination of the DOE, etc. (consistency)
3) that you believe a senator must necessarily sponsor "significant" legislation in order to "do anything." (value judgment)
4. that you consider the policies of John Kerry and GWB as "very similar." that's fine- I would certainly agree that the differences between the two major parties are very similar in many regards (both work within capitalism, both seek to maintain power, etc). but i would still not vote for GWB in a heartbeat because his policies have perpetuated and expanded a growing income inequality gap, whereas the presumptive democratic nominee would seek to reduce the gap. (conservative bastard)
1) that you believe having money and effecting social change are mutually exclusive. (logic)
2) that you blast "class warfare" only when the oppressed lower and middle classes engage in it. the reality is that your republican party antagonizes the lives of the poor as doctrine... regressive taxes, elimination of social security and welfare, welfare "reform," non-universal health care, elimination of the DOE, etc. (consistency)
3) that you believe a senator must necessarily sponsor "significant" legislation in order to "do anything." (value judgment)
4. that you consider the policies of John Kerry and GWB as "very similar." that's fine- I would certainly agree that the differences between the two major parties are very similar in many regards (both work within capitalism, both seek to maintain power, etc). but i would still not vote for GWB in a heartbeat because his policies have perpetuated and expanded a growing income inequality gap, whereas the presumptive democratic nominee would seek to reduce the gap. (conservative bastard)
1. Social change stems from education, which leads to money (if that is your choice) and your ability to be able to wisely support initiatives.
2. The "oppressed lower and middle classes" are more uneducated than oppressed. Elimination of Welfare is antagonistic? It is antagonistic for people to be presented with opportunity and then reject it.
3. A Senator that did not support any major initiatives, with 3 pieces of minor legislation to his name is pathetic by and standards or values when considering effectiveness as a politician. Most senators in an equal position have historically had their names attached to a few dozen or more major pieces of legislation.
4. I consider what policy Kerry has set forth, concerning defense and education as very similar to GWB. Kerry talks this grandiose game that has no real backbone or pipeline for delivery.
Shawn... Class Warfare is very sexy. But we're all a bit oversexed these days, ya know? Second, Republicans are looking for a FLATTER TAX, where everyone pays equally, not according to their "sin" of being "rich." What the hell is wrong with a millionaire and a single mom paying equal taxes for equal protection and service from our govt.
It's a plank of the Communist Manifesto- Progressive Income Tax.
Quote:
Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:
(i)Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.
Here are the core problems I have with your analysis:
1) that you believe having money and effecting social change are mutually exclusive. (logic)
2) that you blast "class warfare" only when the oppressed lower and middle classes engage in it. the reality is that your republican party antagonizes the lives of the poor as doctrine... regressive taxes, elimination of social security and welfare, welfare "reform," non-universal health care, elimination of the DOE, etc. (consistency)
3) that you believe a senator must necessarily sponsor "significant" legislation in order to "do anything." (value judgment)
4. that you consider the policies of John Kerry and GWB as "very similar." that's fine- I would certainly agree that the differences between the two major parties are very similar in many regards (both work within capitalism, both seek to maintain power, etc). but i would still not vote for GWB in a heartbeat because his policies have perpetuated and expanded a growing income inequality gap, whereas the presumptive democratic nominee would seek to reduce the gap. (conservative bastard)
1. Republicans do not hate or even dislike the poor. Their solution is simply not to keep throwing trillions of dollars at poverty.
2. National healthcare is wrong. Wrong.
3. Social Security was never supposed to be permanment. Never.
4. Reduce the income gap? How? Please...go ahead. I'm listening.
Comments
Originally posted by billybobsky
Because I saw the interviews... Not a pessimistic cynic... A realistic one.
Which interviews? That is besides the point, the reason for the US going into Iraq and what people believe are the reasons for our entrance is why people also thought we just wanted oil. It goes both ways.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Cheney, and several other high level administration people were interviewed on tv last year at about the time that these polls came out...
Do you see my other point? It goes both ways. People may well have thought Saddam had something to do with 911, when indeed he did not. People also believed that we went to Iraq to seize and abuse oil, which indeed we did not do.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Yeah, the whole point is that Republicans want the american public to not be informed especially about things that might directly sway their opinions on policy issues.
Now it comes clear, your voice now holds little weight with me and it should not with others. "R's want the public to not be informed..." WOW!
So sad that you think in such ways.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Yeah, the whole point is that Republicans want the american public to not be informed especially about things that might directly sway their opinions on policy issues.
Here is some Republican "informing." The door swings both ways, m' boy.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
How is this so? Is John Kerry not trying to benefit from the anger wave in some of the classes and bolster himself into a position of power based on emotion and backwards thinking?
"We'll take some from here, move it over here, take that over there and build this up over here-ahhhh it all looks even now."---That is not the America I want to live in.
Yes, yes, and no.
Here are the core problems I have with your analysis:
1) that you believe having money and effecting social change are mutually exclusive. (logic)
2) that you blast "class warfare" only when the oppressed lower and middle classes engage in it. the reality is that your republican party antagonizes the lives of the poor as doctrine... regressive taxes, elimination of social security and welfare, welfare "reform," non-universal health care, elimination of the DOE, etc. (consistency)
3) that you believe a senator must necessarily sponsor "significant" legislation in order to "do anything." (value judgment)
4. that you consider the policies of John Kerry and GWB as "very similar." that's fine- I would certainly agree that the differences between the two major parties are very similar in many regards (both work within capitalism, both seek to maintain power, etc). but i would still not vote for GWB in a heartbeat because his policies have perpetuated and expanded a growing income inequality gap, whereas the presumptive democratic nominee would seek to reduce the gap. (conservative bastard)
Originally posted by billybobsky
Messiahtosh, why does that make my voice lose weight? Both parties realistically do it. It is all a part of the current state of spin....
Wow, are you going to stop BSing already?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
(conservative bastard)
Excellent retort. Run for office. NOW.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Here is some Republican "informing." The door swings both ways, m' boy.
CLASS SYSTEM.
We must reduce the growing gaps in income, education, health care, the standard of living, etc. between the rich and the poor.
Originally posted by Jubelum
With his friend Tom Daschle, voice-over by HAL
"Hello, electorate... This is Tom..." [/B]
My Red Hell, you're right!
Brilliant!
Aries 1B
Originally posted by ShawnJ
1) that you believe having money and effecting social change are mutually exclusive. (logic)
2) that you blast "class warfare" only when the oppressed lower and middle classes engage in it. the reality is that your republican party antagonizes the lives of the poor as doctrine... regressive taxes, elimination of social security and welfare, welfare "reform," non-universal health care, elimination of the DOE, etc. (consistency)
3) that you believe a senator must necessarily sponsor "significant" legislation in order to "do anything." (value judgment)
4. that you consider the policies of John Kerry and GWB as "very similar." that's fine- I would certainly agree that the differences between the two major parties are very similar in many regards (both work within capitalism, both seek to maintain power, etc). but i would still not vote for GWB in a heartbeat because his policies have perpetuated and expanded a growing income inequality gap, whereas the presumptive democratic nominee would seek to reduce the gap. (conservative bastard)
1. Social change stems from education, which leads to money (if that is your choice) and your ability to be able to wisely support initiatives.
2. The "oppressed lower and middle classes" are more uneducated than oppressed. Elimination of Welfare is antagonistic? It is antagonistic for people to be presented with opportunity and then reject it.
3. A Senator that did not support any major initiatives, with 3 pieces of minor legislation to his name is pathetic by and standards or values when considering effectiveness as a politician. Most senators in an equal position have historically had their names attached to a few dozen or more major pieces of legislation.
4. I consider what policy Kerry has set forth, concerning defense and education as very similar to GWB. Kerry talks this grandiose game that has no real backbone or pipeline for delivery.
It's a plank of the Communist Manifesto- Progressive Income Tax.
Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:
(i)Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.
- Frederick Engels, The Principles of Communism
Originally posted by ShawnJ
CLASS SYSTEM.
We must reduce the growing gaps in income, education, health care, the standard of living, etc. between the rich and the poor.
Tell me how, by redistributing the wealth? We must not reduce the gaps to a massive extent or face the extinction of incentive.
Don't get into a pissing match with one another. Disagree on points, but don't make it personal.
**pulls out**
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Yes, yes, and no.
Here are the core problems I have with your analysis:
1) that you believe having money and effecting social change are mutually exclusive. (logic)
2) that you blast "class warfare" only when the oppressed lower and middle classes engage in it. the reality is that your republican party antagonizes the lives of the poor as doctrine... regressive taxes, elimination of social security and welfare, welfare "reform," non-universal health care, elimination of the DOE, etc. (consistency)
3) that you believe a senator must necessarily sponsor "significant" legislation in order to "do anything." (value judgment)
4. that you consider the policies of John Kerry and GWB as "very similar." that's fine- I would certainly agree that the differences between the two major parties are very similar in many regards (both work within capitalism, both seek to maintain power, etc). but i would still not vote for GWB in a heartbeat because his policies have perpetuated and expanded a growing income inequality gap, whereas the presumptive democratic nominee would seek to reduce the gap. (conservative bastard)
1. Republicans do not hate or even dislike the poor. Their solution is simply not to keep throwing trillions of dollars at poverty.
2. National healthcare is wrong. Wrong.
3. Social Security was never supposed to be permanment. Never.
4. Reduce the income gap? How? Please...go ahead. I'm listening.