why do you support bush?

[Pangloss]

I'm going to track you two down and make you kiss and make up.

 

(grin)

[Douglas]

actually, it doesnt. i'd appreciate it if you were civil.

budullewraagh, I was more or less saying that with "tongue in cheek".

Since you didn't take it that way (and I understand why you didn't), I apologize.

[r1dermon]

pangloss, im sorry if you feel that this thread was a way for me to backhandedly slam bush supporters. thats not the intent. the intent is, i simply cannot understand, after all the stuff america has gone through under this administration, how he still gets so much support. and i do care about what the bush admin has yet to accomplish...or rather...bring clintons accomplishments back to what they were before president bush came into power(except the gun ban...that thing was rediculous) now, thats really broad, and im not trying to say that clinton did everything right. but look at our deficit...look at our foreign relations....look at our coalition. this is not a good position for us. and im not sure bush wants to recognize it.

[john5746]

Hey budullewraagh' date=' does that mean you're FOR the "Robin Hood" syndrome, rob from the rich, pocket half of it and give the rest to the poor??

 

Talking about socialist's, I noticed the Communist party of America and the Socialist party of America do not have candidate's for President this year, both partys are endorsing Kerry.

 

BTW, what do you think of Kerry running Nader out of town? They've been fighting tooth and nail to keep Nader off the ballots.[/quote']

 

The Neo-nazi and KKK would probably support Bush.

 

Kerry will win without Nadar on the ticket, so of course he wants him of the ticket.

[Pangloss]

after all the stuff america has gone through under this administration, how he still gets so much support. and i do care about what the bush admin has yet to accomplish...or rather...bring clintons accomplishments back to what they were before president bush came into power(except the gun ban...that thing was rediculous) now, thats really broad, and im not trying to say that clinton did everything right. but look at our deficit...look at our foreign relations....look at our coalition. this is not a good position for us. and im not sure bush wants to recognize it.

 

When you put it that way you definitely have my attention. Those are perfectly reasonable concerns, IMO.

[bloodhound]

The latest edition of "The Economist" has a special on the Candidates policies on different issues. On the state of the economy, they also polled 100 economics professors, more than 70% responded to Bushes first term economic policies as bad or very bad. fewer than 20% give positive marks to bush second term economic agenda. and almost six out of ten disapproved. Kerry didnt get rave reviews either. but his polcies fared better.

 

the professors are over-whemilgly critical of the central plank of bushes economic policy - the tax cuts. more than 7 out of ten said it was a bad or a very bad idea. and similar proportion dissaproves his plan to make them pernmanent. keerys plan to roll back the tax cuts for pple earning over 200 grand wins the support of 7 out of ten..

 

Come on pple, these are the economics professors speaking, surely they know what they are talking about.

[john5746]

Nope, scientists don't know anything about global warming or stem cells

 

economists don't know anything about the economy

 

weapons inspectors don't know anything about weapons

 

Bush and Cheney's gut feelings are all we need.

[Pangloss]

I actually like The Economist, it's one of my favorite sources, but I've followed them long enough to know that it's not an *objective* source, as clearly indicated by today's editorial:

 

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3282117

 

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you have to take their opinion pieces as opinion, not news.

 

As far as that story is concerned, I'd like to know why, if this is some sort of objective indication that the Bush administration to be incorrect in the sense of economic science, the result of the poll was only 70%, not 100%. Science is science. Math is math. How can 30% of them be completely wrong? Isn't it more likely that this is an opinion poll, not a scientific analysis?

 

Anyway, that's what makes that an opinion piece, not a news piece.

[bloodhound]

yes, buts its an opinion poll conducted on a sample population who actually know who they are talking about. I would be hard pressed to analyse and understand the current economic situation of USA or Bushes policy. That would apply to the vast population as well.

 

I dont know what u mean by "Objective" source. Cos i never heard that term before. I have followed the economist for quite a while as well. for about 8 years. got the habit from my dad. IMO it is a reliable source of well balanced information and leaves the reader to make the decision on whats right or wrong.

[Pangloss]

I simply mean that there are other sources that are just as knowledgable and more objective in their assessments. Sites that address economic issues with a lot more objectivity.

 

I also think you may be spinning that report a bit. I was unable to find it on their web site, but if you have a link I'd like to see it (maybe it's print-only right now?). I suspect that it actually said that most economists said that the tax cut *did* in fact boost the economy. It just didn't do it as much as they would have liked. That's certainly what Alan Greenspan has said before Congress. And take a look at this quote from the New York Times:

 

Most economists agree that the tax cuts did indeed soften the downturn, helping encourage consumers to keep spending even when unemployment was rising.

 

"The tax cuts were incredibly well timed,'' said Richard Yamarone, chief economist at Argus Research, an investment advisory firm. "I can't imagine that the economy would not have been in a deep recession, had it not been for those tax cuts.''

 

That's from this story in their Campaign 2004 section, dated today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/politics/campaign/09bushjobs.html?ex=1097985600&en=70b184f794c5ab68&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER

 

That's consistent with previous articles I've read about the majority opinions of economists. What you're saying seems to be different. Which tells me that either you or the Economist is doing some spinning, or there's something new here that I need to learn about.

[bloodhound]

I don't see any reason for the economist to spin this. they are pro- iraq as well. not that it matters anyway. well yes i may have a fault in not giving out the full picture. this is the bit i missed out. "A third of the economists reckon the economy is in good or very good shape; about half give a neutral response, and one in five deems the economy to be weak"

 

heres the full article

 

http://www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=3262965

[ydoaPs]

I don't support either candidate. I don't like Bush because he is a liar. I don't like Kerry because all he does is point out that Bush is a liar. If I was of voting age, there would be no way that I would have voted for either one of them in the primaries.

 

[sarcasm]We need to hire a hitman to kill them both so we can get new candidates.[/sarcasm]

[Mokele]

But just remember, it could be worse. When I was a kid in Louisiana, we had a governor's race between a former governor so corrupt he'd spent more time in jail for embezlement than in the office and his opponent, David Duke, a former Grand Dragon of the KKK. The election was sumarized by everyone as "The crook or the klansman".

 

The crook won. 5 years later, he went to jail for under-the-table dealing with organized crime during the legalization of riverboat casinos.

 

Mokele

[pi_of_9]

I am a Civil Libertarian at heart but the party has a snowball's chance in h*ll of winning the presidential election. I don't care for either of the 2 major candidates. Bush, at least, is a known quantity. Kerry is a pathological liar and stands for nothing.

[budullewraagh]

youre a civil libertarian but you support he who defies the constitution?

[pi_of_9]

I don't support either candidate. What specifically do you mean by "defies the constitution"?

[Firedragon52]

I don't support either candidate. What specifically do you mean by "defies the constitution"?

...The Patriot Act...

[budullewraagh]

the patriot act; it allows the government to arrest anybody without a warrant and hold them indefinitely with absolutely no rights to a phone call, a lawyer, or the judicial system. it is very difficult for me to believe you are a civil libertarian if you support bush. also, bush is anti-abortion, while kerry supports the legalization of abortion

[pi_of_9]

Well, that certainly is a rub.

 

But John Kerry is closer to a socialist and I want as little government as possible. The government should provide for the defense of the nation, not provide after-school programs, national healthcare, or tell me that I have to wear a helmet or seatbelt. I don't care what a woman does with her body, as long as I don't have to pay for it. Have an abortion, just not on my dime.

[budullewraagh]

socialism is much more effective than capitalism; for more details, refer to this thread:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6180

since jordan has yet to respond and it's been quite awhile since i posted, i take it he has conceded defeat, so ask sayo if you want to debate that.

 

if you believe that the economy is better under free market capitalism, and that bush has made our economy stronger, i laugh. our debt is greater now than it ever has been and we have lost jobs under bush; something we have not experienced since hoover. no, bush is not helping our economy at all.

[r1dermon]

"kerry is a pathalogical liar"

but bush is a truthfull little angel....

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons

George W. Bush, Sep. 12, 2002

 

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons

George W. Bush, Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002

The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

George W. Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.

George W. Bush Oct 10, 2002

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney Dec 1, 2002

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents...

George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003

 

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush April 24, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003

 

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush May 6, 2003

 

 

just some of the many lies of george W bush. these are all about the WMD's, but he's lied about many more things. such as the time he drove his car off the road in maine while driving at excess speeds intoxicated. then he told his advisors to say that he was pulled over without incident for driving too slowly...classic. driving too slowly..hell, i get pulled over for that all the time.

[pi_of_9]

socialism is much more effective than capitalism

 

If that is the case, why is the U.S. the most prosperous and one of the most politically stable governments in the world?

 

In fact, one of the major medical problems of the poor in this country is obesity. Figure that one out....kids have holes in their shoes, but the shopping cart is full of sodas, beer, chips, and other crap. I was a paramedic for 14 years in the Bay Area and Central California and not once did I ever pick up a patient who was suffering from starvation. I've seen 5 kids sleeping on a mattress on the floor, but the house had cable and a big screen television.

 

The problems in this country is not caused by the leadership, it is the choices that people make. Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Carter...it doesn't matter who is in office, people want to blame someone else for their own shortcomings. They do not want to take responsibility for themselves or their actions. This country chock full of people who believe that the government owes them.

 

The federal government owes us nothing but protection from invasion. That is all. The people of this country should not be taxed by the Federal gov't . The states should be the governing body without interference.

 

"kerry is a pathalogical liar"

but bush is a truthfull little angel....

 

I never said that Bush was truthful. Every politician in Washington lies and schemes. It is the way of things, I suppose and it's been that way since the dawn of time. Sad commentary...

[john5746]

socialism is much more effective than capitalism; for more details' date=' refer to this thread:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6180

since jordan has yet to respond and it's been quite awhile since i posted, i take it he has conceded defeat, so ask sayo if you want to debate that.

 

if you believe that the economy is better under free market capitalism, and that bush has made our economy stronger, i laugh. our debt is greater now than it ever has been and we have lost jobs under bush; something we have not experienced since hoover. no, bush is not helping our economy at all.[/quote']

 

That thread doesn't prove your point. Any Unrestricted "ism" is doomed to fail. Unrestricted capitalism - few winners, many losers. Unrestricted Socialism - no winners. Which is better?

[budullewraagh]

If that is the case, why is the U.S. the most prosperous and one of the most politically stable governments in the world?

if you have a problem, discuss it in the debate i mentioned above. im not going to debate you here because it is off topic and not the place to put debates.

Unrestricted Socialism - no winners. Which is better?

could you please explain that? also, could you define socialism for me? it seems like you are using the wrong definition.

[Douglas]

The problems in this country is not caused by the leadership' date=' it is the choices that people make. Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Carter...it doesn't matter who is in office, people want to blame someone else for their own shortcomings. They do not want to take responsibility for themselves or their actions. This country chock full of people who believe that the government owes them.

The federal government owes us nothing but protection from invasion. That is all. The people of this country should not be taxed by the Federal gov't . The states should be the governing body without interference.[/quote']

I agree with a lot of what you have to say, especially about people who don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.....blame it on someone else.

 

If you're a libertarian, seems to me that Bush is a hell of a lot closer to Libertarianism than Kerry is. You'll be paying for a lot of abortions if he's elected.