Bush or Kerry

[DeathBug]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman']Yes, and I get mine from Ft.Hood Army Base in Texas home of the Fourth Infantry Division and First Calvary Division. The largest military base in the free world and the Army Base with the second largest ammount of soldier casualties in this war. 4th ID was one of the first installations sent to Iraq in March '03 and 1st Cav began the replacement rotation of 4th ID back in February.[/quote]

Ah, well, if we're going to be comparing bases, the people I speak personally with are in US Central Command at MacDill Air force Base in Floridia.

[QUOTE]Plus I spoke with a few soldiers (marine reservists) here in New York, and one of my husband's friends stationed with 4th ID in Ft. Carson CO.

HOwever, when I mentioned my sources you said they weren't accurate based by the fact that I asked people I knew. Silly me, eh?[/QUOTE]

That's not what I said; I said that a survey of the total military reflected more than you or I speaking to individual soldiers.

[QUOTE]
By that wording I'm guessing that you think that since the Pope has decided that abortions are wrong all Catholics should go along with the belief reguardless of what they may believe on their own. Are you saying that Catholics have no right to their personal beliefs? Or that since the Pope may also believe that all homosexuals are evil, that all Catholics should believe that, even those who are homosexual and Catholic? I have to say I'm a bit ashamed of you for that.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry I feel that people who are members of a religion should agree with and follow the basic tennents of the religion. The Pope reflects the beliefs of Catholisism, Catholoisism does not reflect the beliefs of the Pope.

I'm not Catholic, but why shouldn't a Bishop be able to say "You're in favor of abortion/the death penalty/gay marrige, and our church doesn't agree with that."? I don't agree with those stances, and I'm not Catholic. If John Kerry doesn't hold one of the most basic principles of his faith, why does he belong to that faith?


[QUOTE]I can also offer another one- [url]http://conservativepunk.com[/url]. You said once how hard it is being a conservative punk, well, you're not the only one. :D [/QUOTE]

After arguing with Cloricus, it's refreshing to argue with someone I actually like. ^__^


[QUOTE]Actually, I was almost hoping for George H.W. Bush. The 80 year - old father of the Devil who jumps out of Air planes :laugh: [/QUOTE]

Wasn't that just the coolest thing ever?

[QUOTE]Since we're continuously bringing up this War In Iraq deal and not considering the soldiers all that much, I'd like to bring this up:

At the moment all soldiers stationed in combat areas receive an extra $400 a month for hazardous duty pay. However, at the end of December because of escallating war costs congress may lower it back to the standard $250 a month. Isn't that just a great way to show the troops how much their lives are worth?

What does everyone think of that idea?[/QUOTE]

Except they probably won't do that, beause at the end of December, we'll have much fewer troops in Iraq, and the situation will be much more stable.

John Kerry on the war: John Kerry voted for the war, yet he's done nothing but protest it since it began. He claims the US went in without any allied support, even though we had Britain, Spain, Romania, Austrailia, Italy, Qatar, Turkey, the Czech Republic and dozens of others on our side.

His wartime strategy was recently compared to President Bush's in the New York times and found to be almost the exact same. Kerry and hi staff didn't argue with this result, thus giving it their consent. Yet Kerry does nothing but harass President Bush on his war-time plan. The main difference between them that the Times noted, aside from Kerry wanting "More allied support" (Which I guess means France, who sucks, and Germany), is that Kerry would pull out American troops faster than President Bush would. Yet President Bush is accused of "cutting and running"?

I miss Howard Dean. :(

Anyway, I'm burnt out on this thread.

[InuyashaLvr]

hey guyz sup? well im srry but i am going to speak my mind. I can not stand either bush or kerry!!!
Reasons::
Bush-wont stop the war in iraq when he knows he can :(
Kerry: Keeps things stirred up and wont support our troops. :eek:

I know im too young to do anything about how i feel but i think both of them r horrible idols, and i dont want either of them to be president. does anyone feel the same?????? :confuse2: :huh:

[Guest FuzzieEars67]

I, too, would vote for Bush. I believe he is an honest man, and his choices have been made for the best of the country. Anyone who say otherwise, like Michael Moore, can burn.

[Adam]

I only got to skim this thread, but as someone who's taken quite a few advanced classes in economics, I feel obligated to say something here!

[quote name='DeathBug'] Actually, I do, in a fashion; surpluses are bad. Economically, a macro surplus is a sign of inefficiency; not all resources are being used to their fullest capabilities. [/quote]

How in the world are macro surpluses bad and deficits good? Surpluses are simply created when government revenue is higher than government expenses. This has nothing to do with resource allocation; rather it's simply the government making a profit.

You'd never criticize a company that makes a profit as being 'inefficient'. Quite the opposite, companies that are unprofitable are the inefficient ones. Governments are different than companies, of course, and shouldn't exist to try and solely get surpluses. But if it happens, great!

I mean surpluses can accrue interest and thus create a small revenue stream and backup cash reserve for the government beyond taxes. They also don't incur interest payments, like deficits. We're going to be paying for Bush's "efficient" use of deficits (and just the interest of it) for quite a long time.


[QUOTE=DeathBug]

2) The formula for Gross National Product is G+I+C+NX. That's government spending plus investments plus consumption plus net exports. If you increase any of these, all things remaining equal, the GNP will rise. Increasing government spending will lead to a greater return as long as the other factors remain stable; you have to spend money to make money.

Therefore, we can see that a surplus is actually a bad thing; the surplus that Clinton gets credit for should actually be the surplus he gets blame for, as it heralded economic downtimes. ("G" went down, so GNP went down.).[/QUOTE]

I don't want to sound mean, but beyond the equation G+I+C+NX = GDP, everything else here is wrong.

Increasing government spending crowds out business investment. This is because the government borrows money to fund its spending and this raises the interest rate, which makes investments for businesses less desirable (the "crowding out effect"). Thus, a higher G means by definition a lower I, which means a lower C as well. You cannot keep the other variables equal, as you assumed. Otherwise, why wouldn't every president, upon taking office, just borrow trillions of dollars and mindlessly spend it?

Increasing government spending also creates a federal deficit (as I talked about earlier). The rise in GDP from increased G isn't very sustainable for an economy. This is why even with a massive increase in G, our GDP growth is still nowhere near where it was under Clinton.

Speaking of which, Clinton managed to grow the GDP solely through C + I + NX. That means, during his tenure, people spent more money, businesses spent more money, and foreigners bought more American goods. THIS is sustainable. Additionally, though G went down, we had a budget surplus, which every trained economist in the U.S. cheered heartily for.

-Adam

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='FuzzieEars67']I, too, would vote for Bush. I believe he is an honest man, and his choices have been made for the best of the country. Anyone who say otherwise, like Michael Moore, can burn.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Thank you for making such a short post, this will be quick and painless for both of us.

Bush is far from honest, the only reason we went to war with Iraq is because he listened to bad advice from his advisors and lied about finding WMDs. Add that to his questionalble guard record and any other clap trap he's said and he loses even more credibility. Plus, he's a politician, politicians aren't honest.

As for his choices being for the best interests of this country, I must laugh in your face for that comment. I fail to see how sending my husband to get shot at is for the best for this country. It certainly wasn't in either of our best interests.

Now, I don't agree with Michael Moore's extreme views on the subject. Infact I wish hed send his rich over fed, over hyped, fat butt to Iraq and make himself useful as a human sheild for our Marines and such. However, I don't agree with Bush's radical ideas of everything from marriage to this ill conceived war on terror. So I guess I should probably go burn now right? Becuase I dissagree with your views on the subject.

I'm sorry if I may sound a bit pissy, but my brother is getting on my last nerve. Plus I absolutely detest being rounded into a catergory with Michael Moore.

CHW[/color]

[Guest AnyoneButBush]

[SIZE=3][SIZE=3]I feel that Bush had his chance to prove to his country that he could make it a better place here but he toatally screwed it up. [/SIZE] [/SIZE]
I'm fourteen years old and my generation is going to be paying off this huge deficit of 186 billion(the war on iraq alone). The war has done nothing because most of the country is w/o running water and power. Visit my site(click on the banner) please to stop this monster before it is too late!

[SIZE=4]So my political stance is...[/SIZE]

behavior="alternate" scrollamount="10" width="300" height="40" loop="true"> AnyoneButBush in '04

please visit and sign guestbook

[Guest AnyoneButBush]

[SIZE=3][SIZE=3]I feel that Bush had his chance to prove to his country that he could make it a better place here but he toatally screwed it up. [/SIZE] [/SIZE]
I'm fourteen years old and my generation is going to be paying off this huge deficit of 186 billion(the war on iraq alone). The war has done nothing because most of the country is w/o running water and power. Visit my site(click on the banner) please to stop this monster before it is too late!

[COLOR=Lime][SIZE=4]So my political stance is...[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[URL=http://www.freewebs.com/anyonebutbush]Anyone but Bush in '04![/URL]

please visit and sign guestbook

[Guest Midnight Rush]

so, anyonebutBush, you would elect Gary Coleman over George W. Bush?

Your vary name suggests a pathetic immaturity that completely surpasses the Queen of Idiocy, the CHW. I don't give a damn if you hate George Bush, in fact good for you. But I have to ask you some questions,

Do you honestly believe that anyone else (I don't mean no one is better, I'm referring to the huge majority of the population) would be better than the President?

Do you understand anything about politics or economics?

Don't you realize that they have found million and millions of pounds of warheads, armaments, and biological delivery weapons in iraq? (I will post citation of the article as soon as I find it again)

Do you care about the United States at all? If your answer is no, get the **** out of my country.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Undefeated']Your vary name suggests a pathetic immaturity that completely surpasses the Queen of Idiocy, the CHW.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Normaly I wouldn't respond to something like this, but my character has been insulted.

I'm not sure how to respond to this sort of childish name calling except to point out that I've responded directly to your posts pleanty of times and have yet to find a hint of logic in anything you've posted.

Nor have you come back to argue your stand effectively like other people have. I don't agree with your points of view, but I don't regress to name calling . [/color]

[quote name='Undefeated']Don't you realize that they have found million and millions of pounds of warheads, armaments, and biological delivery weapons in iraq? (I will post citation of the article as soon as I find it again)[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Like my mom said when she read your post. Where? I've been reading the paper, watching five different local news stations plus CNN, MSNBC and Fox news and looking online to find out if Bush may have been telling the truth. Big surprise, he's been lying since March 2003.

People are being killed over there for a lie. How does that make you feel?[/color]

[quote name='Undefeated']Do you care about the United States at all? If your answer is no, get the **** out of my country.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]IF this was indeed [i]your[/i] country I would get out of it, then request an air assult on your country to stop the stupidity.

However, this isn't [i]your[/i] country. This country has this novel idea of freedom of speech, which is why you're allowed to make assinine statements about people you know nothing about and other people are allowed to not want someone elected as president because they feel that he has done a poor job the past four years he was in office.

Like my US History teacher said: I may not agree with what you say, but I'll let you say it. So unDefeated think of that the next time you get some idea that you're going to call someone immature for their thoughts on a subject.

Well, that's said and done with, next order of business:

I'm finding myself leaning more and more towards voting for Kerry based on quite a few things that have been brought to my attention.

1.) Refusal to grant POWs protection under the Geneva Conventions by Bush's cabinet namely Donald Rumsfeld.

It is my firm belief that no country, no matter how powerful it thinks it may be, should be allowed to adjust international laws to fit their tastes.

2.) We were lead into this failing war on terror by lies and deceit. That hasn't changed yet.

We've lost over 800 people since the beginning of this war. Today I learned from my husband that a guy in his unit got hit in the face with an RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade. people don't get hit with Role playijng games) And for what? An ill conceived plan to force a person's ideals on a country which hates us.

I've lost faith in my government pretty much. I don't care about surplus deficit or economic gains. My main focus for the next presidential candidate will be one that gets my husband out of that hell hole.

Don't tell me I should or shouldn't feel a certain way towards Bush because the truth is, I have a pretty good reason to hate him. Because of his war mongering, someone I love very much is in danger pretty much every day and I haven't seen him since February.

Now, unless something ground breaking comes along, I'm going to take Death Bug's lead and take a hiatus on this topic[/color]

[Secily]

:mad: Bush...did anyone here see farenheit (SP) 9/11? Because that does bring forth something to consider! I totally agree with Chibihorsewoman, and Bush is lying...seriously, prove that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! And I don't think there should have even been a war!!! The war, if you could call it a war, is leading absolutely nowhere, and we shouldn't just let those people cut off our heads! We should blow them to smitherines, every last one of them...and I know this seems harsh, but that's what has to be done. We should pull our troops out, and bomb the enemy! We won WWII, and that was how, and we should've learned from past experiances that this is not going to lead anywhere. I am a democrat, and let me just say why...

Republicans, as far as I can see, get the money to the people by giving it to large buisinesses, and Democrats give it straight to the people, a benefit for the middle class.

And, Bush is just a puppet for this group of old republicans, the vice president is running the country because Bush is too dumb and ignorant to. There!!!

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Hussein has a history of using biological weapons, there was a nuclear research facility constructed in Iraq (until it was blown up), etc. Maybe Hussein didn't have WMDs in his back yard, but he was working on it in any case. This war was essentially trying to finish what Desert Storm failed to... though we'll see how it pans out in the end. Anyway, to say that there was no reason to topple Iraq's regime is being a bit ignorant I think. I don't want to get into the topic any further, but there has always been more than enough justification to take down Hussein, before and after Sept. 11's incident.

A war in Afghanistan, on the other hand, is flat-out impossible to carry out too well, and everyone knows it. It seemed almost a necessity considering 9/11 (i.e. we needed to retaliate somehow), but that region is not something you can dwell on. It makes more sense to concentrate war efforts on a visible enemy (who has proven to be a problem) than to piss away troops and resources in Afghanistan.

Now, as far as the government's justifications for the Iraq conflict to the American public, I couldn't care less. I don't care if it was over a friggin nickel.