PDA

View Full Version : Why YOU voted for Bush?



Cosmonaut
11-11-2004, 06:39 PM
OK. I just want to know why exactly you voted for Bush. So far i have heard why people don't like Kerry but nothing about the reasons that you actually like Bush. Here is your chance to explain why you voted the way you did. Everyone keeps saying that all the rednecks voted for him, i do not believe so, there must have been plenty of intelligent people that voted for him? Can someone please enlighten me?

Try to keep this civilized but prolly not gonna happen.

Fleshwound
11-11-2004, 06:57 PM
I didn't want to vote for Bush but I thought the threat of socialized healthcare was looming closer to becoming reality. (Especially with the prospects of a Democratic President)

Also, Bush seemed to have a better medical malpractice insurance reform plan than Kerry. (Besides, I couldn't vote for someone with a trial lawyer on the ticket.) Possible elimination of the Estate Tax before it sunsets was another concern along with lower tax rates.

Iraq was single-handily the best reason to oust Bush along with his religious ideology. If Kerry was more moderate then I would have probably voted for him.

jdmbbuilder1
11-11-2004, 07:04 PM
OK. I just want to know why exactly you voted for Bush. So far i have heard why people don't like Kerry but nothing about the reasons that you actually like Bush. Here is your chance to explain why you voted the way you did. Everyone keeps saying that all the rednecks voted for him, i do not believe so, there must have been plenty of intelligent people that voted for him? Can someone please enlighten me?

Try to keep this civilized but prolly not gonna happen.

This is a great thread...Its always good to hear both sides of the story.

Cosmonaut
11-11-2004, 07:12 PM
Yeah, i figure instead of bashing Bush supporters i'd hear them out.

urbanlegend
11-11-2004, 08:26 PM
The (biggest) reasons I voted for Bush were:

-Feasible Ideas: The guy had a plan outlined that was conceivable and believable. Kerry talked tall tales left and right, many of which conflicted with his voting record.

-Plan for the Economy: Bush's tax cuts helped us get out of a recession. And despite what everyone seems to be saying, the president does not have that much control over the economy. He did what little he could to help, and has not hurt it. Outside factors were responsible for that. Kerry wanted to increased taxes on small businesses via his plan to tax the richest 1%, as well as tax the rest of us.....its the only way he could pay for his health care plan.

-Strong Leadership: Nuff said.

-Didn't want to socialize healthcare and make the situation worse than it already is.

-International Policy: Keeping international pressure on Korea was what Bush has done and said he would keep doing. Kerry had a "lets multi-nationalize everything BUT N.Korea" policy for no other reason then it was the opposite of what Bush was saying. Bush also would keep pressure on Iran.


And thats about it......quite frankly Bush is not an ideal enough candidate to have lots of qualities to praise. Mostly I just believed he could do the things he was talking about, whereas Kerry kept making BS promises.

Cosmonaut
11-11-2004, 08:31 PM
-Plan for the Economy: Bush's tax cuts helped us get out of a recession. And despite what everyone seems to be saying, the president does not have that much control over the economy. He did what little he could to help, and has not hurt it. Outside factors were responsible for that. Kerry wanted to increased taxes on small businesses via his plan to tax the richest 1%, as well as tax the rest of us.....its the only way he could pay for his health care plan.
The States have a pretty strong economy and i am pretty sure it was going to come out of the recession eventually anyway. How do you feel about Bush giving a tax cut to the rich?

jdmbbuilder1
11-11-2004, 08:33 PM
The (biggest) reasons I voted for Bush were:

-Feasible Ideas: The guy had a plan outlined that was conceivable and believable. Kerry talked tall tales left and right, many of which conflicted with his voting record.

-Plan for the Economy: Bush's tax cuts helped us get out of a recession. And despite what everyone seems to be saying, the president does not have that much control over the economy. He did what little he could to help, and has not hurt it. Outside factors were responsible for that. Kerry wanted to increased taxes on small businesses via his plan to tax the richest 1%, as well as tax the rest of us.....its the only way he could pay for his health care plan.

-Strong Leadership: Nuff said.



-Didn't want to socialize healthcare and make the situation worse than it already is.

-International Policy: Keeping international pressure on Korea was what Bush has done and said he would keep doing. Kerry had a "lets multi-nationalize everything BUT N.Korea" policy for no other reason then it was the opposite of what Bush was saying. Bush also would keep pressure on Iran.


And thats about it......quite frankly Bush is not an ideal enough candidate to have lots of qualities to praise. Mostly I just believed he could do the things he was talking about, whereas Kerry kept making BS promises.

I might've missed his plan outlines during the presidential debates. Can you explain his plans further and tell us why you think they were conceivable? I'm interested in hearing both sides of the story.

urbanlegend
11-11-2004, 08:36 PM
I might've missed his plan outlines during the presidential debates. Can you explain his plans further and tell us why you think they were conceivable? I'm interested in hearing both sides of the story.


ALL of his plans? From ALL of the debates? Sorry bro, I like a discussion as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to write a comprehensive essay about why I voted for Bush. If it really interests you, by all means look up the debate transcripts, and other information pertaining to Bush's plans.

LatsMakeTheMan
11-11-2004, 08:39 PM
How do you feel about Bush giving a tax cut to the rich?

Think about it.....what do most rich people do with their money? They invest it. Investments are what DRIVE the economy. So by giving the rich a tax cut, you are giving them more disposable income, which they will most likely put back into the economy.

Tax cuts for the rich = economic growth.


That's what short-sighted people don't understand.

jdmbbuilder1
11-11-2004, 08:39 PM
ALL of his plans? From ALL of the debates? Sorry bro, I like a discussion as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to write a comprehensive essay about why I voted for Bush. If it really interests you, by all means look up the debate transcripts, and other information pertaining to Bush's plans.

I didnt ask for a comprehensive essay "bro". just reasons why you think his plan was conceivable. If you don't have reasons, thats ok too. A small three sentence paragraph will suffice.

Cosmonaut
11-11-2004, 08:46 PM
Think about it.....what do most rich people do with their money? They invest it. Investments are what DRIVE the economy. So by giving the rich a tax cut, you are giving them more disposable income, which they will most likely put back into the economy.

Tax cuts for the rich = economic growth.


That's what short-sighted people don't understand.
Umm most investments are made into overseas companies/accounts. etc.. How can you tell how a rich person spends/invests his money? Infact, most rich people buy foreign cars i.e. Mercedes, Porche - these are all made overseas, so intern these cuts help Germany, Italy. Majority of the GDP is due to consumer spending in their home country - that is people like you and i. The more money you have the more of it you leave in a bank which does nothing for the economy. A poor person spends all of his money on essential needs, therefore contributes to the economy more. Btw i am not making this up this is out of Grade 12 Economics.

jdmbbuilder1
11-11-2004, 08:46 PM
Think about it.....what do most rich people do with their money? They invest it. Investments are what DRIVE the economy. So by giving the rich a tax cut, you are giving them more disposable income, which they will most likely put back into the economy.

Tax cuts for the rich = economic growth.


That's what short-sighted people don't understand.


Yes, a rich person driving around in a new Mercedes Benz SL500 paid for by the Bush administraion makes alot of sense. Ok here's the deal....If a rich person invests the money, they would most likely be expecting a return and will get that return. Hence the saying, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". Why doesn't Bush give the tax cut to the middle class so they can put their money into a more feasible investment such as....well, I dunno....this might sound a little crazy......THEIR CHILD's EDUCATION (eg college fund)

Cosmonaut
11-11-2004, 08:47 PM
ALL of his plans? From ALL of the debates? Sorry bro, I like a discussion as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to write a comprehensive essay about why I voted for Bush. If it really interests you, by all means look up the debate transcripts, and other information pertaining to Bush's plans.
A couple of plans thats all, ones that you think were good.

urbanlegend
11-11-2004, 08:47 PM
I didnt ask for a comprehensive essay "bro". just reasons why you think his plan was conceivable. If you don't have reasons, thats ok too. A small three sentence paragraph will suffice.


Its very difficult to do that with such a broad spectrum of topics, but I will do my best.

Basically, he made no promises that were drastically different than things he had done in the past. He also didn't call for anything unreasonable to be done. For example, he wasn't going to promise Americans cheaper healthcare by having the government pay for it. He didn't promise to solve everyone's problems, he had a few goals like Tax Cuts, Fixing Social Security, etc, that he said he was going to focus on. He didn't promise 10 million new jobs, which considering our current growth, and the unemployment rate being between 5-6%, is just not possible, etc.

urbanlegend
11-11-2004, 08:50 PM
Yes, a rich person driving around in a new Mercedes Benz SL500 paid for by the Bush administraion makes alot of sense. Ok here's the deal....If a rich person invests the money, they would most likely be expecting a return and will get that return. Hence the saying, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". Why doesn't Bush give the tax cut to the middle class so they can put their money into a more feasible investment such as....well, I dunno....this might sound a little crazy......THEIR CHILD's EDUCATION (eg college fund)

He gave a tax cut to everyone. The fact that you don't know this means you either area A) uneduated or B) not old enough to pay taxes, and therefore not old enough to vote.

Besides.......
People who earn their money should keep as much of it as possible anyway. They earned it, they didn't steal it, why should it be taken from them? Voluntary give aways are different. Chairity is wonderful, I give 10% of what little I make to a church, but the gov. job is to regulate, not redistribute. I believe in a handup - not a handout.

If you want money: Go out and earn it.

jdmbbuilder1
11-11-2004, 08:57 PM
Its very difficult to do that with such a broad spectrum of topics, but I will do my best.

Basically, he made no promises that were drastically different than things he had done in the past. He also didn't call for anything unreasonable to be done. For example, he wasn't going to promise Americans cheaper healthcare by having the government pay for it. He didn't promise to solve everyone's problems, he had a few goals like Tax Cuts, Fixing Social Security, etc, that he said he was going to focus on. He didn't promise 10 million new jobs, which considering our current growth, and the unemployment rate being between 5-6%, is just not possible, etc.

Ok, thats a fair viewpoint. I don't agree with it but its fair. The reason why i don't agree with it is because his plan was unclear. For instance, he doesn't have to make promises he can't fullfill. What i needed from him was an outline on how he can make this country better...a CLEAR plan, not just cliche patriotic rhetoric. An outline usually consists of steps that lead to an ultimate goal. The STEPS to attain that goal were just not evident in my opinion, but the goal was repeated much too often in his campaign.

jdmbbuilder1
11-11-2004, 09:07 PM
He gave a tax cut to everyone. The fact that you don't know this means you either area A) uneduated or B) not old enough to pay taxes, and therefore not old enough to vote.

Besides.......
People who earn their money should keep as much of it as possible anyway. They earned it, they didn't steal it, why should it be taken from them? Voluntary give aways are different. Chairity is wonderful, I give 10% of what little I make to a church, but the gov. job is to regulate, not redistribute. I believe in a handup - not a handout.

If you want money: Go out and earn it.

Lets keep this civilized my friend. Name calling gets us nowhere. Its very hard to go out and earn if a person cannot find a job and the unemployment line goes around the building. "Go out and earn it" is what many poverty stricken people might just do, its called drug dealing, hustling, robbing...anything to just get by. Its not their fault they live like this....the system is set up in a way that they have to do what it takes to survive. It might be easy for you, an outsider, to say "go out and earn it" because you might have never been in a situation where you grew up in the ghetto with an empty table, unable to feed your children. Reality is that it is human nature to do whatever it takes to survive and the way in which this system is set up, the only way to survive is through extreme measures. By giving the poorer less fortunate americans a fighting chance, maybe this will change for the better.

-Dr. JS DPT

and Yes as a practicing physical therapist, I do pay taxes, my friend.

urbanlegend
11-11-2004, 09:35 PM
Lets keep this civilized my friend. Name calling gets us nowhere. Its very hard to go out and earn if a person cannot find a job and the unemployment line goes around the building. "Go out and earn it" is what many poverty stricken people might just do, its called drug dealing, hustling, robbing...anything to just get by. Its not their fault they live like this....the system is set up in a way that they have to do what it takes to survive. It might be easy for you, an outsider, to say "go out and earn it" because you might have never been in a situation where you grew up in the ghetto with an empty table, unable to feed your children. Reality is that it is human nature to do whatever it takes to survive and the way in which this system is set up, the only way to survive is through extreme measures. By giving the poorer less fortunate americans a fighting chance, maybe this will change for the better.

-Dr. JS DPT

and Yes as a practicing physical therapist, I do pay taxes, my friend.

I apologize for the name calling, its just odd that someone who does pay taxes would say Bush's tax cuts didn't go to the middle class. Sorry for the confusion and the cutting remarks.

Anyway, it is unfortunate what some people have to do to get by. I'm not saying we should eliminate welfare or anything likethat, I was mainly talking about how people need to back off Bush and the rich getting tax cuts like everyone else. Its not like people can get up on a soapbox and say "You're rich; therefore you don't deserve all that money you make."

But the system is not as unfair as many would like to believe. More often than not, most people in this country have a fighting chance at success, which is why people of all ages, ethnicities, and backgrounds have and will continue to become successful in this country. I'm not as much of an "outsider" to this concept as you might think.......I had to work for 2 years before I could go to college. My dad lost his job when 9-11 happened, and we were on welfare for a little bit. With 5 kids that just doesn't cut it, but my brother and I didn't go out and rob liquor stores, we got jobs. I kept mine long enough to save some money for tuition, and here I am.

The fact of teh matter is there are too many people that complain about the system that are just not willing to do what it takes to succeed. And when I say succeed, I don't mean be like Donald Trump, I mean to be a fuctioning member of society that pulls your own weight, and is self reliant. Self-reliance seems to have become one of those virtures thrown out the door, as it isn't "popular." Its much easier to blame the system and vote democrat than it is to get a job. Thats a sterotype that fits too many people that I know. Mainly people who are political science or communications majors.......go figure.

Its not a terribly lopsided battle. Equal opportunity is important, but it doesn't mean someone should have what they earned taken away to give to those who was equal results, despite having equal opportunity.

Brinn
11-11-2004, 09:38 PM
If a rich person invests the money, they would most likely be expecting a return and will get that return. Hence the saying, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer".
So if a poor person invests their money, they expect a loss? What do people when they put money into their children's college fund? They expect that investment to appreciate.

Cosmonaut
11-11-2004, 09:43 PM
Ok there must be more than two people that voted for Bush on this forum come on peeps.

jdmbbuilder1
11-11-2004, 10:02 PM
So if a poor person invests their money, they expect a loss? What do people when they put money into their children's college fund? They expect that investment to appreciate.

The point I was making was that EVERYONE THAT MAKES AN INVESTMENT EXPECTS A RETURN. But if you don't have the initial capital to make an investment, you can't expect anything. The point is, wealthier people have that initial capital to play with...poorer people don't. What money they do have is needed for basic necessity. I DO see college as an investment because if you look at it from a grand scale...you are investing in a child's future so that they can make a better life for themself in the long run. Not necessarily a financial investment, although college graduates on average do earn more than non graduates.

THATS the point i was trying to make, my son.

Brinn
11-11-2004, 10:16 PM
The government can't make your money for you. All it is doing is taking less money from you. If you pay less tax to begin with, you're going to get less back with the tax cut. How you manage your own money is not the government's business.

Ps. Cut it out with the blatant condescension.

jdmbbuilder1
11-11-2004, 10:35 PM
I apologize for the name calling, its just odd that someone who does pay taxes would say Bush's tax cuts didn't go to the middle class. Sorry for the confusion and the cutting remarks.

Anyway, it is unfortunate what some people have to do to get by. I'm not saying we should eliminate welfare or anything likethat, I was mainly talking about how people need to back off Bush and the rich getting tax cuts like everyone else. Its not like people can get up on a soapbox and say "You're rich; therefore you don't deserve all that money you make."

But the system is not as unfair as many would like to believe. More often than not, most people in this country have a fighting chance at success, which is why people of all ages, ethnicities, and backgrounds have and will continue to become successful in this country. I'm not as much of an "outsider" to this concept as you might think.......I had to work for 2 years before I could go to college. My dad lost his job when 9-11 happened, and we were on welfare for a little bit. With 5 kids that just doesn't cut it, but my brother and I didn't go out and rob liquor stores, we got jobs. I kept mine long enough to save some money for tuition, and here I am.

The fact of teh matter is there are too many people that complain about the system that are just not willing to do what it takes to succeed. And when I say succeed, I don't mean be like Donald Trump, I mean to be a fuctioning member of society that pulls your own weight, and is self reliant. Self-reliance seems to have become one of those virtures thrown out the door, as it isn't "popular." Its much easier to blame the system and vote democrat than it is to get a job. Thats a sterotype that fits too many people that I know. Mainly people who are political science or communications majors.......go figure.

Its not a terribly lopsided battle. Equal opportunity is important, but it doesn't mean someone should have what they earned taken away to give to those who was equal results, despite having equal opportunity.

How this "why I voted for bush" discussion led to this is a mystery to me. You are right, people should not have what they earned taken away BUT to level the playing field everyone should give an equal percentage of what they earn to support this country. You even said you pay a 10 percent tithing to your church as do I. Now, do you think its fair that everyone in your church pay a flat donation of 100 dollars every week at Mass? To someone that is earning 100,000 a year, that amount might not be a problem; just "a drop in the bucket" as they say. But to someone that is earning 10$/hr, that accounts for a large portion of their weekly pay for which they will have to make some serious lifestyle changes. Would you be willing to pay that amount?

To place blame on the system...I don't think the blame is unfounded because (read my statement above, no need for reiteration). A handout is not what we're asking for, but part of a governments resposiblity is to provide adequate healthcare and other basic necessities to its citizens. I think we can all agree that Bush's tax cut favored the top 1% of Americans and hurt the poorest 1% by widening the social gap even further. All we ask is to level the playing field just a little.....is a small percentage of your "hard-earned" money worth it for a better america in the future in that less poverty will exist? In my opinion it does, and thats why as an american citizen I will continue to pay my taxes just as long as the wealthy big business' do the same. You know because, I can move my company headquarters to the Carribean to avoid taxes too.........bbbuuuut thats a totally another subject.

Fleshwound
11-11-2004, 10:54 PM
to level the playing field everyone should give an equal percentage of what they earn to support this country.

You are correct, a flat tax rate is needed. Instead of 10-15% for the poor and 35% for the rich, where should the percentage be? 10-15 %, 25%, or 35%?

Brinn
11-11-2004, 11:09 PM
All we ask is to level the playing field just a little.....
If that's what you're asking for, the poor will be paying even more percentage-wise than they do now. Or the rich will pay less.

TDW586
11-11-2004, 11:36 PM
My reasons for voting Bush, in no particular order:

Firstly, it is my belief that the war in Iraq, regardless of Bush's stated and/or actual reasons, was in fact benificial to the world, on the whole. Saddam was a brutal dictator who tortured and killed uncounted numbers of his people. I fail to see how one can protest a war which is stopping genocide and torture, it is as simple as that.

Secondly, we ARE in Iraq, whether or not it was right, and we have no choice but to finish what we started. My father and uncle are both in Iraq at the moment, my father as a Dyncorp International Police Trainer instructing the Iraqi National Riot Control Police in An Numiniyah, my uncle with the NC National Guard outside Fallujah. They both beleive that Bush is more capable of handling the situation, and I agree. Changing a leader in a war is nearly never a good idea.

Thirdly, I dislike John Kerry's socialist doctrines, on issues such as health care. George Bush, on the other hand, is the only President EVER to come up with a practical, workable plan to help pay for prescription drugs.

Fourthly, John Kerry is strongly for gun control, as his voting record clearly shows. Gun control is blatantly Unconstitutional, erodes a basic human right, and has never been conclusively shown to lower any crime rate anywhere.

I have various other reasons, but the simple reason is, I agree with Bush on more issues than Kerry. Not to be rude, but why is that so hard to beleive or understand?

bluemarlin04
11-11-2004, 11:56 PM
Lets keep this civilized my friend. Name calling gets us nowhere. Its very hard to go out and earn if a person cannot find a job and the unemployment line goes around the building. "Go out and earn it" is what many poverty stricken people might just do, its called drug dealing, hustling, robbing...anything to just get by. Its not their fault they live like this....the system is set up in a way that they have to do what it takes to survive. It might be easy for you, an outsider, to say "go out and earn it" because you might have never been in a situation where you grew up in the ghetto with an empty table, unable to feed your children. Reality is that it is human nature to do whatever it takes to survive and the way in which this system is set up, the only way to survive is through extreme measures. By giving the poorer less fortunate americans a fighting chance, maybe this will change for the better.

-Dr. JS DPT

and Yes as a practicing physical therapist, I do pay taxes, my friend.


No man, thats the unmotivated persons crutch. If your poor, im sorry, yes it sucks, but get off your ass and find a job, dont whine and say the system is screwing you...cause guess what? its not. Im not going to give my hard earned money to some poor person who thinks the gov't is screwing them. no sir. Join the military and make something of yourself, go work hard and save money, dont say im poor give me a handout, **** that work for your money like everyone else. I dont care where you grew up, you can make something of yourself reguardless, its your choice to do it or not.

I dont believe in Handouts like the other person said, you should be on your own busting your ass to do something. Join the military find a job, something.

jdmbbuilder1
11-12-2004, 04:03 AM
No man, thats the unmotivated persons crutch. If your poor, im sorry, yes it sucks, but get off your ass and find a job, dont whine and say the system is screwing you...cause guess what? its not. Im not going to give my hard earned money to some poor person who thinks the gov't is screwing them. no sir. Join the military and make something of yourself, go work hard and save money, dont say im poor give me a handout, **** that work for your money like everyone else. I dont care where you grew up, you can make something of yourself reguardless, its your choice to do it or not.

I dont believe in Handouts like the other person said, you should be on your own busting your ass to do something. Join the military find a job, something.

read my next entry...and don't sound like a broken record player

jdmbbuilder1
11-12-2004, 04:07 AM
If that's what you're asking for, the poor will be paying even more percentage-wise than they do now. Or the rich will pay less.
l
level the playing field as in narrowing the social gap.

BigZeke
11-12-2004, 04:13 AM
Infact, most rich people buy foreign cars i.e. Mercedes, Porche - these are all made overseas, so intern these cuts help Germany, Italy.

Well first of all Porsche is not Italian, they are German and they build most of their cars here. Mercedes-Benz is owned by Daimler-Chrysler, main office is in Germany, they build their cars here, in Arkansas if I'm not mistaken. So buying a Benz will help the American economy, because they build here.

Very few car companies build overseas anymore. Even the Japanese companies build here now. It's cheaper and easier to do so. So just because you don't buy an American car doesn't mean that your money doesn't go into the US economy. Most will go overseas as that's where the main corporate offices are for these companies, but they still have to pay workers here, pay for materials here, etc...so even foreign cars benefit the American economy, not to the extent that an American car would, since that money would stay here and not go overseas.

DanMc
11-12-2004, 05:48 AM
Ok there must be more than two people that voted for Bush on this forum come on peeps.

After reading this thread your intentions seemed to have changed.


Yeah, i figure instead of bashing Bush supporters i'd hear them out.



There seems to be less hearing people and more passing judgment/making comments about why people voted for Bush.

At this point its hardly up for debate seeing how it is over.

I voted for Bush because I believe in his ideas, he is far more honest; It was the right choice for our country. There was also the fact he has never committed treason. Your naturally going to debate that fact so ask yourself these questions.
Why is his military record sealed? Yet democrats hammered Bush for his service record.
How is it he received his discharge 8 years after the fact? In a fashion that is only done by those who have been dishonorably discharged in the first place.
Why would countless men he served with right letters to him asking Mr. Kerry to step up and come fourth for his actions?


And yes I am aware that was not the initial idea of the thread yet as stated you opened the door for it.

Cosmonaut
11-12-2004, 07:23 AM
Well first of all Porsche is not Italian, they are German and they build most of their cars here. Mercedes-Benz is owned by Daimler-Chrysler, main office is in Germany, they build their cars here, in Arkansas if I'm not mistaken. So buying a Benz will help the American economy, because they build here.

Very few car companies build overseas anymore. Even the Japanese companies build here now. It's cheaper and easier to do so. So just because you don't buy an American car doesn't mean that your money doesn't go into the US economy. Most will go overseas as that's where the main corporate offices are for these companies, but they still have to pay workers here, pay for materials here, etc...so even foreign cars benefit the American economy, not to the extent that an American car would, since that money would stay here and not go overseas.
Your right even if a rich person buys a foreigh car it some money still comes back the US, due to the way the world economy is tied in with it. However, some of it not all, there are plenty of cars built overseas so you cant relly make that statement. I was just trying to provide an example of how rich people do not necesseraly help the economy, there are plenty of other examples.

Cosmonaut
11-12-2004, 07:24 AM
After reading this thread your intentions seemed to have changed.





There seems to be less hearing people and more passing judgment/making comments about why people voted for Bush.

At this point its hardly up for debate seeing how it is over.

I voted for Bush because I believe in his ideas, he is far more honest; It was the right choice for our country. There was also the fact he has never committed treason. Your naturally going to debate that fact so ask yourself these questions.
Why is his military record sealed? Yet democrats hammered Bush for his service record.
How is it he received his discharge 8 years after the fact? In a fashion that is only done by those who have been dishonorably discharged in the first place.
Why would countless men he served with right letters to him asking Mr. Kerry to step up and come fourth for his actions?


And yes I am aware that was not the initial idea of the thread yet as stated you opened the door for it.

Once again im just trying to understand some of the reasons people voted for Bush thats all. So far i am glad this has been kept pretty civilized.

DanMc
11-12-2004, 07:41 AM
Once again im just trying to understand some of the reasons people voted for Bush thats all. So far i am glad this has been kept pretty civilized.

Your being told why its not a debate.

Cosmonaut
11-12-2004, 07:49 AM
Your being told why its not a debate.
No problem i wont make any comments, i just made one regarding economics thats all.

wuddog
11-12-2004, 07:50 AM
OK. I just want to know why exactly you voted for Bush. So far i have heard why people don't like Kerry but nothing about the reasons that you actually like Bush. Here is your chance to explain why you voted the way you did. Everyone keeps saying that all the rednecks voted for him, i do not believe so, there must have been plenty of intelligent people that voted for him? Can someone please enlighten me?

Try to keep this civilized but prolly not gonna happen.
Because if you don't fight it over there, you will fight it here. Kerry was too focused on pulling the troops out and not finishing the job.

Brinn
11-12-2004, 08:19 AM
l
level the playing field as in narrowing the social gap.
It doesn't work. The tax system is a poor tool for social engineering.

jdmbbuilder1
11-12-2004, 09:07 AM
It doesn't work. The tax system is a poor tool for social engineering.

It can be a start...I never said it was the end-all means to social equality. If it is a poor tool for social engineering, then all the other methods that are currently in place are POORER tools because the gap continues to widen even further.

LatsMakeTheMan
11-12-2004, 09:52 AM
Umm most investments are made into overseas companies/accounts. etc.. How can you tell how a rich person spends/invests his money? Infact, most rich people buy foreign cars i.e. Mercedes, Porche - these are all made overseas, so intern these cuts help Germany, Italy. Majority of the GDP is due to consumer spending in their home country - that is people like you and i. The more money you have the more of it you leave in a bank which does nothing for the economy. A poor person spends all of his money on essential needs, therefore contributes to the economy more. Btw i am not making this up this is out of Grade 12 Economics.

Most wealthy people don't leave large sums of money in banks, because typically the FDIC only insures it up to $100,000. And many of those foreign cars you speak of are built here in this country, and sold by American salespeople at lots that are owned by Americans. Also, I don't understand why you think that a poor person's spending on basic needs "helps the economy more." While a tax break for the middle and lower classes might make their lives easier in the short term, Bush's plan aims to better the economy for everyone in the long term.

bluemarlin04
11-12-2004, 10:39 AM
read my next entry...and don't sound like a broken record player


thats all you have to say about my entry?

yes, it will narrow the social gap, but in the end it will screw the rich...People need to get off their ass and work, not be bums and burdens to our country. how is giving the poor more money going to narrow the social gap? you know what it is going to do? make them more lazy.

jdmbbuilder1
11-12-2004, 10:42 AM
thats all you have to say about my entry?

yes, it will narrow the social gap, but in the end it will screw the rich...People need to get off their ass and work, not be bums and burdens to our country. how is giving the poor more money going to narrow the social gap? you know what it is going to do? make them more lazy.

Im not sure you understood what I meant by read my next post. Read my previous entries in this thread.

sculli
11-12-2004, 10:51 AM
My reasons for voting Bush, in no particular order:

Firstly, it is my belief that the war in Iraq, regardless of Bush's stated and/or actual reasons, was in fact benificial to the world, on the whole. Saddam was a brutal dictator who tortured and killed uncounted numbers of his people. I fail to see how one can protest a war which is stopping genocide and torture, it is as simple as that.

Secondly, we ARE in Iraq, whether or not it was right, and we have no choice but to finish what we started. My father and uncle are both in Iraq at the moment, my father as a Dyncorp International Police Trainer instructing the Iraqi National Riot Control Police in An Numiniyah, my uncle with the NC National Guard outside Fallujah. They both beleive that Bush is more capable of handling the situation, and I agree. Changing a leader in a war is nearly never a good idea.

Thirdly, I dislike John Kerry's socialist doctrines, on issues such as health care. George Bush, on the other hand, is the only President EVER to come up with a practical, workable plan to help pay for prescription drugs.

Fourthly, John Kerry is strongly for gun control, as his voting record clearly shows. Gun control is blatantly Unconstitutional, erodes a basic human right, and has never been conclusively shown to lower any crime rate anywhere.

I have various other reasons, but the simple reason is, I agree with Bush on more issues than Kerry. Not to be rude, but why is that so hard to beleive or understand?
I agree with your reasons. I'd also like to add that Bush is pro-military and puts money into the military rather than downsizing. Kerry, no matter what he says or has done is not pro-military. I'm in the military in-case that wasn't too obvious.

TDW586
11-12-2004, 11:38 AM
I agree with your reasons. I'd also like to add that Bush is pro-military and puts money into the military rather than downsizing. Kerry, no matter what he says or has done is not pro-military. I'm in the military in-case that wasn't too obvious.

Give me a few years, I'll be joining the USMC, so obviously I care whether a cantidate is going to take care of the military and give American fighting men the things they need.

NuggzTheNinja
11-12-2004, 11:48 AM
Like unarmored vehicles, vietnam-era flak jackets, and ineffective guns?

When Bush puts some metal on those vehicles, Interceptor body armor and IIIa helmets instead of this level II bullsh-t on the troops, and scraps these bullsh-t short barreled rifle designs, I'll start to take his military prowess seriously. Until then, it's just more meat for the meat grinder.

DanMc
11-12-2004, 12:34 PM
Like unarmored vehicles, vietnam-era flak jackets, and ineffective guns?

When Bush puts some metal on those vehicles, Interceptor body armor and IIIa helmets instead of this level II bullsh-t on the troops, and scraps these bullsh-t short barreled rifle designs, I'll start to take his military prowess seriously. Until then, it's just more meat for the meat grinder.


Dude I agree with you but it aint Bush congress has to pass the bills to fund it.

kingfish3
11-12-2004, 12:42 PM
its funny how people change their minds about why they voted for bush. There is a reason why he lost new york, especially new york city, dc, illinois, california where safety, terrorism is an issue.
Did you know if kerrw was president every person on here would have health insurance. Wow!
Yeah bush gave tax breaks but it caused gas, oil, etc to go up.

jdmbbuilder1
11-12-2004, 12:51 PM
its funny how people change their minds about why they voted for bush. There is a reason why he lost new york, especially new york city, dc, illinois, california where safety, terrorism is an issue.
Did you know if kerrw was president every person on here would have health insurance. Wow!
Yeah bush gave tax breaks but it caused gas, oil, etc to go up.


bump

bluemarlin04
11-12-2004, 02:44 PM
I agree with your reasons. I'd also like to add that Bush is pro-military and puts money into the military rather than downsizing. Kerry, no matter what he says or has done is not pro-military. I'm in the military in-case that wasn't too obvious.
yeah man, i just joined the Air Force, i want a president that will support the troops, not some dumb prick who protested soldiers and threw away his medals in vietnam.

Diesel66
11-12-2004, 02:50 PM
its funny how people change their minds about why they voted for bush. There is a reason why he lost new york, especially new york city, dc, illinois, california where safety, terrorism is an issue.
Did you know if kerrw was president every person on here would have health insurance. Wow!
Yeah bush gave tax breaks but it caused gas, oil, etc to go up.


So the Pentagon doesnt count as a target anymore ?

There is a reason why he lost NY, CA, and IL, it is called he is a republican and that is the norm. Last time those states went to a Rep it was Reagan and he won every state but Minn and DC.

Did you know that Kerry's plan was not to give health care to everyone ?

NuggzTheNinja
11-12-2004, 02:51 PM
Just so you know, Dan, when I talk sh-t about the war, it's not directed at the soldiers. Our soldiers do what they do extremely well. They're great and blowing sh-t up. All the hippies that spit on Vietnam vets, f-ck them. Everybody with half a brain realizes that soldiers do what they're told, no less. It's the politician's job to put them where they need to be.

Whether or not leaving them in the middle of the desert as sitting ducks is OK is what I'd like to debate with you. :)

Diesel66
11-12-2004, 03:24 PM
So how is advocating leaving before the mission is done and looking weak going to help the miltiary ?

It happened in Vietnam, Iran, Beirut and Somalia. Our enemies saw the US as a strong opponent, but all they have to do is get a few casualties on the tv stations and the nation caves.

Tet offensive whiped out the VC as a fighting force and the US won every battle. Yet it was shown as a lost by Chronkite and the rest of the media.

Somalia, a company of Rangers and Delta squadron complete the mission, end up killing/wounding more then 1000 enemies compared to 100 US casualties, and the US freaks out and demends they come home.

Brinn
11-12-2004, 03:32 PM
It can be a start...I never said it was the end-all means to social equality.
It's not even a start. There's a reason why Canada and many countries in Europe have consistently higher unemployment rates than the US. If you think it's hard to save for your child's education on low income, wait til you get a load of no income.

If it is a poor tool for social engineering, then all the other methods that are currently in place are POORER tools because the gap continues to widen even further.
I don't believe the government should be in the business of social engineering. The government can't be totally eliminated from the equation, but generally speaking, the less it interferes in people's lives, the better.

Brinn
11-12-2004, 03:35 PM
its funny how people change their minds about why they voted for bush.
How did they change their minds? In every analysis of the election that I've seen, terrorism was down the list.

Yeah bush gave tax breaks but it caused gas, oil, etc to go up.
You're kidding, right? Bush's tax cuts caused the price of gas to go up in Canada too?

jdmbbuilder1
11-12-2004, 03:39 PM
yeah man, i just joined the Air Force, i want a president that will support the troops, not some dumb prick who protested soldiers and threw away his medals in vietnam.

hahahahhahahhahahha

u'd rather have a draft dodger instead of a veteran with purple hearts to command you?!!

That's like me saying i'd rather have a med school drop out operate on me instead of an experienced surgeon. Aloha, You _ucking Fool!!!

Kerry saw FIRST HAND that the war HE WAS FIGHTING IN was not right therfore he testified before Congress about the atrocities he had seen, not as a bystander but as a PRIMARY SOURCE.

Reasons why I respect Kerry more than Bush is; 1) they both graduated from Yale, 2) they both came from wealthy families, 3) they could have chosen any path in life because of the endless possibilities given to them (wealth, education) yet Kerry still chose to join the military and fight in Vietnam while Bush skipped "class" in the National Guard.

I support the Troops especially that one that was running for president...whats his name again? oh yea KERRY!!

Fleshwound
11-12-2004, 03:42 PM
Aloha, You _ucking Fool!!!

Lets keep this civilized my friend. Name calling gets us nowhere.

:confused:

jdmbbuilder1
11-12-2004, 03:45 PM
:confused:

I tried...I really, really did. Honest

BigZeke
11-12-2004, 04:12 PM
Your right even if a rich person buys a foreigh car it some money still comes back the US, due to the way the world economy is tied in with it. However, some of it not all, there are plenty of cars built overseas so you cant relly make that statement. I was just trying to provide an example of how rich people do not necesseraly help the economy, there are plenty of other examples.

There is less than you think, and you would be surprised how many companies are owned by a larger American parent company

Diesel66
11-12-2004, 04:15 PM
hahahahhahahhahahha

u'd rather have a draft dodger instead of a veteran with purple hearts to command you?!!

That's like me saying i'd rather have a med school drop out operate on me instead of an experienced surgeon. Aloha, You _ucking Fool!!!

Kerry saw FIRST HAND that the war HE WAS FIGHTING IN was not right therfore he testified before Congress about the atrocities he had seen, not as a bystander but as a PRIMARY SOURCE.

Reasons why I respect Kerry more than Bush is; 1) they both graduated from Yale, 2) they both came from wealthy families, 3) they could have chosen any path in life because of the endless possibilities given to them (wealth, education) yet Kerry still chose to join the military and fight in Vietnam while Bush skipped "class" in the National Guard.

I support the Troops especially that one that was running for president...whats his name again? oh yea KERRY!!

Kerry graduated in 65 and was about to be drafted. He joined the swift boats because they were far away from combat but close enough to look good on his resume.

Bush graduated in 68 and there is nothing showing him about to be drafted that I know of. He could have done a 2 year enlistment riding a desk but wanted to be a pilot. 5 + years of flying a dangerous plane is not service ?

jdmbbuilder1
11-12-2004, 04:24 PM
Kerry graduated in 65 and was about to be drafted. He joined the swift boats because they were far away from combat but close enough to look good on his resume.

Bush graduated in 68 and there is nothing showing him about to be drafted that I know of. He could have done a 2 year enlistment riding a desk but wanted to be a pilot. 5 + years of flying a dangerous plane is not service ?

So you won't give any credit to ANY of the Swift boat veterens that served in Vietnam because they weren't close enough to actual combat? How close should they be to combat before we should give them credit for their service? A mile? A yard? A centimeter? A milimeter? 3.65 feet? I mean come on now, give them credit for taking the initiative to fight within the boundaries of the country of Vietnam.

I didn't say Bush didn't serve. What I said was he shirked his way out of fighting in Vietnam by not showing up for his national guard duties. You can do a google search and find his military record for yourself.

Bottom Line: Kerry fought in military combat. Bush didn't. Who would you rather have as comander in chief?

Thats like hiring a person that has never played football, to coach an NFL team. Its called logic...use it.

bluemarlin04
11-12-2004, 04:24 PM
hahahahhahahhahahha

u'd rather have a draft dodger instead of a veteran with purple hearts to command you?!!

That's like me saying i'd rather have a med school drop out operate on me instead of an experienced surgeon. Aloha, You _ucking Fool!!!

Kerry saw FIRST HAND that the war HE WAS FIGHTING IN was not right therfore he testified before Congress about the atrocities he had seen, not as a bystander but as a PRIMARY SOURCE.

Reasons why I respect Kerry more than Bush is; 1) they both graduated from Yale, 2) they both came from wealthy families, 3) they could have chosen any path in life because of the endless possibilities given to them (wealth, education) yet Kerry still chose to join the military and fight in Vietnam while Bush skipped "class" in the National Guard.

I support the Troops especially that one that was running for president...whats his name again? oh yea KERRY!!

hey man FUK YOU. I didnt insult you and then you say "ALoha you FUKIng fool..."

1) I love it how the mods, gimp i think it was bans people left and right for insulting and lets you get away with this. hes on your side. fuking left wingers.

2)Kerry sent his ass home from vietnam, with a self inflicting wound. then when he returned he threw his medals away and then joined with jane fonda and advocated anti-war protests and ridiculed soldiers that came home from vietnam, this is all while kids were coming home in bodybags. A true american hero he was. what a great soldier.

jdmbbuilder1
11-12-2004, 04:27 PM
hey man FUK YOU. I didnt insult you and then you say "ALoha you FUKIng fool..."

1) I love it how the mods, gimp i think it was bans people left and right for insulting and lets you get away with this. hes on your side. fuking left wingers.

2)Kerry sent his ass home from vietnam, with a self inflicting wound. then when he returned he threw his medals away and then joined with jane fonda and advocated anti-war protests and ridiculed soldiers that came home from vietnam, this is all while kids were coming home in bodybags. A true american hero he was. what a great soldier.

Wow you're worse than them coffee house liberal conspiracy theorists. Self-inflicted wound?! homework....do it.

...and read beyond the "aloha"...there are some interesting facts in that post that might be of use to you.

johnnyironboard
11-12-2004, 05:15 PM
Main reason was his tax plan.

Cosmonaut
11-12-2004, 06:34 PM
There is less than you think, and you would be surprised how many companies are owned by a larger American parent company
I see what you are saying it was just an example thats all, obviously a bad one.

P.S. my dad works for GM and i am aware of all the other companies that they own, same goes for Ford and Chrysler.

bluemarlin04
11-12-2004, 06:47 PM
Wow you're worse than them coffee house liberal conspiracy theorists. Self-inflicted wound?! homework....do it.

...and read beyond the "aloha"...there are some interesting facts in that post that might be of use to you.

no FUK you prick, you said **** you straight up...You do your homework, it was self inflicting..

What do you have to say about kerry throwing away his medals? and protesting and ridiculing soldiers?

jdmbbuilder1
11-12-2004, 09:00 PM
no FUK you prick, you said **** you straight up...You do your homework, it was self inflicting..

What do you have to say about kerry throwing away his medals? and protesting and ridiculing soldiers?

i love how you're getting all worked up....thats my plan...

go ahead...punch the monitor..do it...hahahaha, aloha

Do your homework and find credible sources...then we will talk.

Other than that, I don't feel the need to reiterate my prior statements. Read my previous entries.

aloha, my friend.

Brinn
11-13-2004, 01:49 AM
i love how you're getting all worked up....thats my plan...

go ahead...punch the monitor..do it...hahahaha, aloha
You said **** you first so it sounds like you got worked up before bluemarlin04. You haven't said anything about my point that wealth distribution not working.

bluemarlin04
11-13-2004, 02:10 AM
You said **** you first so it sounds like you got worked up before bluemarlin04. You haven't said anything about my point that wealth distribution not working.
exactly, he has nothing to say about what we ask him, just another uneducated liberal.

Diesel66
11-13-2004, 02:20 AM
So you won't give any credit to ANY of the Swift boat veterens that served in Vietnam because they weren't close enough to actual combat? How close should they be to combat before we should give them credit for their service? A mile? A yard? A centimeter? A milimeter? 3.65 feet? I mean come on now, give them credit for taking the initiative to fight within the boundaries of the country of Vietnam.



Read again then realize I did not say the swift boats did not operate away from combat. I restated what Kerry admitted to the Boston Globe the fact that when he chose the swift boats, they were not in combat. They were doing shore operations not river operations.
Their mission changed after Kerry was assigned to the boats. He tried his best to stay out of combat yet still have a great looking resume. Even during the election he tried to use his months in Vietnam as the sole reason to elect him.

Bush's military records show him signed an agreement for 6 years for flight training. They show no problems for the first 5 years (first 4 years were many times more then required), then something changed in his outlook and he did the minimum. Was allowed to leave early when the AF was shrinking because the Vietnam War was over and they did not need the massive amounts of personal. No proof he did not serve accordingly.


Still no reasoning behind Kerry's website having a false DD214 file. It claims he won the Silver Star with V and a PURBLE Heart (3 Awards). Now military records do screw up and are not always complete, but typos and medals that do not exists are not allowed at all.


http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml


Kerry initially hoped to continue his service at a relatively safe distance from most fighting, securing an assignment as "swift boat" skipper. While the 50-foot swift boats cruised the Vietnamese coast a little closer to the action than the Gridley had come, they were still considered relatively safe.

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."




For the past several weeks, Kerry's staff said it has been unable to come up with a Navy document to explain that assertion. On Friday, however, the National Archives provided the Globe with a Navy "instruction" document that formed the basis for Kerry's request. The instruction, titled 1300.39, says that a Naval officer who requires hospitalization on two separate occasions, or who receives three wounds "regardless of the nature of the wounds," can ask a superior officer to request a reassignment. The instruction makes clear the reassignment is not automatic. It says that the reassignment "will be determined after consideration of his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis." Because Kerry's wounds were not considered serious, his reassignment appears to have been made on an individual basis.



Commanders fight to stay in command for the entire 12 months to 2 years. He gladly left after 4 months.

youngvet1
11-13-2004, 02:48 PM
While I cant give a SINGLE reason why someone would vote for Bush I can give you many why u shouldnt have voted for Bush.

1. Lets face it his cut taxes on the rich theory: FAILED big time!. And since he has taken office it seems that he is going to continue with this line. ( Just like him not to admit to his mistakes) . Which bring the next point:

2. Poor decision making regarding going to war. He is at best a poor decision maker or at worst and perhaps more likely corrupt. To this day the american people still dont know why we realy went to war. Why not Saudi arabia, where all his and his dads bsiness partners are at?( oops I answered my own question)

3. Continually lies to the American people regarding the resons we went to war( think this isnt a big deal think of Clinton and the fuss they made over sexual relations and this is a war he is lying about not a BJ).

4. Has caused more of a deficit than any other preseifnt in HISTORY. (And yes other administrations had wars and recessions)

5. Has said nothing regarding outsourcing and fixing this loophole the goverment gives companies who outsource.

6. ( and for me ) opposes full agreement with stem cell research.

CytoSport08
11-13-2004, 02:49 PM
OK. I just want to know why exactly you voted for Bush.


cuz they got nothing better to do...

Fleshwound
11-13-2004, 03:28 PM
1. Lets face it his cut taxes on the rich theory: FAILED big time!.

What is so wrong about cutting the rates for the higher tax brackets?

youngvet1
11-13-2004, 03:37 PM
What is so wrong about cutting the rates for the higher tax brackets?

Becuase it did NOT stimulate the economy and has drove america into a huge deficit.

Fleshwound
11-13-2004, 03:50 PM
Becuase it did NOT stimulate the economy and has drove america into a huge deficit.

In theory it should because most wealthy people will want to move their money out of tax-exempt municipal bonds and tax-free securities and invest it into something. Besides, the rich are taxed too much anyway while having to bear the majority of this country's tax burden.

Reducing the tax rates for the richest is probably the only fair thing the government can do, other than a flat income tax rate. (I honestly see nothing wrong with a graduated tax rate which we have now, only if the rates were reduced just a bit)

Diesel66
11-13-2004, 05:30 PM
While I cant give a SINGLE reason why someone would vote for Bush I can give you many why u shouldnt have voted for Bush.

1. Lets face it his cut taxes on the rich theory: FAILED big time!. And since he has taken office it seems that he is going to continue with this line. ( Just like him not to admit to his mistakes) . Which bring the next point:

2. Poor decision making regarding going to war. He is at best a poor decision maker or at worst and perhaps more likely corrupt. To this day the american people still dont know why we realy went to war. Why not Saudi arabia, where all his and his dads bsiness partners are at?( oops I answered my own question)

3. Continually lies to the American people regarding the resons we went to war( think this isnt a big deal think of Clinton and the fuss they made over sexual relations and this is a war he is lying about not a BJ).

4. Has caused more of a deficit than any other preseifnt in HISTORY. (And yes other administrations had wars and recessions)

5. Has said nothing regarding outsourcing and fixing this loophole the goverment gives companies who outsource.

6. ( and for me ) opposes full agreement with stem cell research.

1 He cut everyone's taxes. Both by rasing the decution levels and by lowering the first tax bracket to 10%.

2 Did you even read the War Authorization Bill passed by Congress ? States exactly why we went to war.

3 Which specific lie about war ? Remember Specific.

4 WWII and Vietnam were much higher in real dollars.
Also from the day Bush entered office (and remember Bush's first budget did not take effect until Oct1st, 01) to now the debt has raised from $5.728 to $7.429 trillion. Net gain $1.701 percentage gained 29.7%.

Clintons time in office the debt rose from $4.175 to $5.728. Net gain $1.553 percentage gain 37.2%.

And to compare to Regans. 930 billion to 2.6 trillion (actually more but it does not have the all dates) Gain of $1.7 and percentage 188.9%

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm

5 Outsourcing is not a big deal. It is not new nor can the govt stop it without shutting down our basically free market economy.

6 So does a lot of people. Do like CA did and get your state to fund stem cell research or get people to donate their money instead of my money to research.

johnnyironboard
11-14-2004, 05:56 AM
Becuase it did NOT stimulate the economy and has drove america into a huge deficit.
I've hired in the past two years. If Kerry were elected I was going to put additional hiring plans on hold to see if I could afford it with taxes going up.

NuggzTheNinja
11-14-2004, 08:59 AM
Diesel, you'd rather give your money to Iraq than to bettering the life expectancy of people in this country?

Diesel66
11-14-2004, 10:08 AM
Diesel, you'd rather give your money to Iraq than to bettering the life expectancy of people in this country?

in what way ?
Health care ? nope, I have seen how bad socialized health care is.
Stem cell research ? Nope.
Rather have Congress get slapped everytime they try and add any extra spending for special projects for their home district, but that will not happen.

NuggzTheNinja
11-14-2004, 10:11 AM
I understand your reasoning for opposing national healthcare. I do too.

But why stem cell research?

Diesel66
11-14-2004, 10:18 AM
Bush gets attacked for having a high debt but people still want the govt to fund something unproven and very costly like stem cell research ?

CA is beyond broke and their credit rating is horrible yet the people passed stem cell research and a number of other bonds. And they wonder why their taxes go up or the services get cut.

NuggzTheNinja
11-14-2004, 10:26 AM
But giving Halliburton a no-bid 20billion dollar contract, of which half was misappropriated...and they're currently in court for that, is a better idea?

The government putting money into research, and the government making research ILLEGAL, are very different things. One is based on necessity, the other is based on religion. Eww....

youngvet1
11-14-2004, 10:31 AM
Bush gets attacked for having a high debt but people still want the govt to fund something unproven and very costly like stem cell research ?

CA is beyond broke and their credit rating is horrible yet the people passed stem cell research and a number of other bonds. And they wonder why their taxes go up or the services get cut.

I much rather have my tax dollars go towards stem cell research than to the iraq war. Well now i agree we have to finish what we started but that does not alleviate the fact that it was very FOOLISH to start in the first place. Something that Bush is still too dumb to admit to. Bush still says "I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN". (oops wrong president.) At least clinton not admitting tghe obvious was about a BJ not a war. Thing is I am not sure which is worse Bush's failure to realize the mistake and say yes he made a mistake but now we must finish what we started and make good out of it. Or the fact that he is so dumb and dictator minded that he doesnt even realize he made mistakes.

Brinn
11-14-2004, 10:50 AM
The government putting money into research, and the government making research ILLEGAL, are very different things. One is based on necessity, the other is based on religion. Eww....
There's the third option: the government not putting money into research. It is different from making research illegal.

Stem cells aren't only obtained from embryos. There are many sources for them. Granted, embryonic stem cells have the most varied potential compared to other sources, but those other sources can be equally effective.

NuggzTheNinja
11-14-2004, 11:00 AM
What I meant is, the government doesn't need to fund stem cell research to make it viable.

My lab isn't funded by the government and we do OK.

Brinn
11-14-2004, 11:45 AM
What I meant is, the government doesn't need to fund stem cell research to make it viable.

My lab isn't funded by the government and we do OK.
Ok, my bad.

NuggzTheNinja
11-14-2004, 11:56 AM
Hell naw, at least you cleared it up. :)

LatsMakeTheMan
11-14-2004, 09:59 PM
I say let some other country who's not fighting a war figure out stem cell research. (Preferably one that's not dependent on us for money)

kwyckemynd00
11-14-2004, 10:06 PM
its funny how people change their minds about why they voted for bush. There is a reason why he lost new york, especially new york city, dc, illinois, california where safety, terrorism is an issue.
Did you know if kerrw was president every person on here would have health insurance. Wow!
Yeah bush gave tax breaks but it caused gas, oil, etc to go up.
If you think tax breaks had anything to do with oil prices you need to educate yourself...that's a direct result of growing economies like India and China and the problems their creating for OPEC. Iraq may be worth $2/barrel, but hardly anything.

If you think security reasons are why Bush didn't win Cali and NY, you're delusional. 50% of New Yorkers believe that the gov't and Bush knew about 9/11 in advance....bush didn't win there because it's overrun with liberal nutcases.

I voted for Bush because he was the better of the two men. Healthcare, economy, militarily, not a UN lover, Iraq...I believe he was the better of the two on all of those. I personally would have probably implemented different policies than he did, but I had two people to choose from and I made a decisions.

When it comes to immigratin, we're lost with either party... :(

youngvet1
11-14-2004, 10:39 PM
If you think tax breaks had anything to do with oil prices you need to educate yourself...that's a direct result of growing economies like India and China and the problems their creating for OPEC. Iraq may be worth $2/barrel, but hardly anything.

If you think security reasons are why Bush didn't win Cali and NY, you're delusional. 50% of New Yorkers believe that the gov't and Bush knew about 9/11 in advance....bush didn't win there because it's overrun with liberal nutcases.

I voted for Bush because he was the better of the two men. Healthcare, economy, militarily, not a UN lover, Iraq...I believe he was the better of the two on all of those. I personally would have probably implemented different policies than he did, but I had two people to choose from and I made a decisions.

When it comes to immigratin, we're lost with either party... :(



You my friend are the crazy one. I am from manhattan and u know why he didnt win NY it is becuase us NewYorkers know that Bush is down right out of his mind and is either very dumb or currupt. Which ever the case I dont want him for my president. He has run the WORST presidency in history. And taken everything that is valued by the US and seemingly turned it into a dictatorship. He won the election by FALSELY and redicoulously making slogans of how Kerry was a flip flop and thus people voted out of fear that kerry couldnt handle the war. Bush is an arrogant and bullheaded piece of u know what in my opinion. He still hasnt coped to his mistake of going to war with iraq. Either he didnt want to be honest with the american people or he is that stupid. Again either way I dont want him for president. He has never veoed ANY bill that went before him. Lets face it he was absolutley reckless with the deficit. And now the democrats are demanding that "bills be tallied" becuase Bush is about to start us dragging us further in debt since starting his second term. Man this guy doesnt learn. I hesitate to even mention democrats becuase regardless if I was a democrat or republican it is outrageous for Bush to be this countrys president.

And regarding your comment Bush not being a UN lover, that is unfortunate that he is not. As they were probably the ones who saw things with a clear mind. Yet Bush and his dictator way had to after iraq. Why not saudi arabia where his and his daddy business partners are? Well that was rhetorical.

Bush will go down in history as the man the has taken America from greatness to a non respected country that will burden us for decades to come (watch and see). All of u who voted for him will regret it. The deficit that he started lying that he could get paid down only after John Kerry made claims he is already breaking his promise and the deficit will be ten times worse after he is done with his term.

THATS right ladies and gents after his reelection there are already signs that he is continuing his same old reckless ways.
God save this country

kwyckemynd00
11-14-2004, 11:05 PM
You my friend are the crazy one. I am from manhattan and u know why he didnt win NY it is becuase us NewYorkers know that Bush is down right out of his mind and is either very dumb or currupt. Which ever the case I dont want him for my president. He has run the WORST presidency in history. And taken everything that is valued by the US and seemingly turned it into a dictatorship. He won the election by FALSELY and redicoulously making slogans of how Kerry was a flip flop and thus people voted out of fear that kerry couldnt handle the war. Bush is an arrogant and bullheaded piece of u know what in my opinion. He still hasnt coped to his mistake of going to war with iraq. Either he didnt want to be honest with the american people or he is that stupid. Again either way I dont want him for president. He has never veoed ANY bill that went before him. Lets face it he was absolutley reckless with the deficit. And now the democrats are demanding that "bills be tallied" becuase Bush is about to start us dragging us further in debt since starting his second term. Man this guy doesnt learn. I hesitate to even mention democrats becuase regardless if I was a democrat or republican it is outrageous for Bush to be this countrys president.
Please, demonstrate how this has been the worst presidency in our history??? I'd love to see someone finally back that up with evidence...

Sorry, but Kerry was a flip-flopper. Everyone changes their minds on things, but he was ridiculous. I don't think "he" ever flip flopped on his own beliefs, but he did make changes for political gain, which is worse IMHO.

FYI, it's a documented statistic that 50% of new yorkers believe president bush and his administration knew about 9/11 in advance and chose not to do anything...you can't deny that's just ODD!


And regarding your comment Bush not being a UN lover, that is unfortunate that he is not. As they were probably the ones who saw things with a clear mind. Yet Bush and his dictator way had to after iraq. Why not saudi arabia where his and his daddy business partners are? Well that was rhetorical.
The UN is corrupt, bro. If you don't see this, you're blind or uneducated.


Bush will go down in history as the man the has taken America from greatness to a non respected country that will burden us for decades to come (watch and see). All of u who voted for him will regret it. The deficit that he started lying that he could get paid down only after John Kerry made claims he is already breaking his promise and the deficit will be ten times worse after he is done with his term.
People may not respect us. I can give a rats ass what Europe thinks. When's the last time they were right???? In WWII they let hitler come to power b/c the were appeasers. They're still appeasers and pvssies.

I'm sure I'll regret it alright :D LOL.

If you think Kerry would pay down our deficit, which is well within historical range when it comes to %gdp--which is the important measure, you're wrong and in need of help. He's a bigger spender than bush.


THATS right ladies and gents after his reelection there are already signs that he is continuing his same old reckless ways.
God save this country
What reckless ways? If you're talking about Fallujah, I'm glad it's finally happening. I hope he and allawi put forth greater efforts to rid the terrorists from Iraq so they can hold free and peaceful elections and then we can come home sooner rather than later.

Marv
11-14-2004, 11:10 PM
P. Diddy said I'd die.....................

kwyckemynd00
11-14-2004, 11:12 PM
P. Diddy said I'd die.....................
ROFLCOPTER :D Did you see the South Park where they clowned on P.Diddy for that????

BigZeke
11-14-2004, 11:48 PM
I say let some other country who's not fighting a war figure out stem cell research. (Preferably one that's not dependent on us for money)

So that leaves you with about two countries.....

Diesel66
11-15-2004, 12:14 AM
But giving Halliburton a no-bid 20billion dollar contract, of which half was misappropriated...and they're currently in court for that, is a better idea?

The government putting money into research, and the government making research ILLEGAL, are very different things. One is based on necessity, the other is based on religion. Eww....

They did not make it illegal to fund any stem cell research. All Bush did was say he was not going to sign any legistlation giving federal money to that type of research.

BTW Halliburton was the only American company able to do the job. That is why they were given a no bid contract for Iraq and Bosnia.

youngvet1
11-15-2004, 09:15 AM
I guess the main reason i dont like Bush is that he is either not honest or corrupt.


He still has not admitted that it was a mistake to enter into war which proves he had his own private aganda regarding iraq that had absolutlely nothing to do with terrorism...or he really is that stupid. It is deductive logic, If he would make the same decision to go to war knowing what we know now, than there must have been other reasons we went to war in the first place that he did not come up front with to the american people ( and still has not). Maybee it was oil, maybee it was to give his daddy's company haliburton money, who knows with this guy. WHY DIDNT HE CHOOSE SAUDI ARABI (he and u always want to doge this-- we need to get him into the witness stand and god dam interogate him like a crimminal).



Now let me explain what everyone says how John Kerry is a flip flop and then u will see that he is actually the only stand up person that was going to challenge Bush's dictatorship.
He initially did not give his senate vote to go to war but after being bombarded with the ultimatum that either way they have the vote to go to war with or without him that he should give his vote so that they will appear to be a united and strong country to the rest of the world. Since the outcome was the same, the good person that he is did what was best for the country and gave his vote. He gaver this vote not before delivering a speech warning of what how we must carry out the war and the precautions we must take. He said "we must have a clear plan...", "get other countries involved"...
Hearing the speech today makes me feel like he was pshchic, cause wrongfully Bush broke each warning. Bush just has no brains.

Brinn
11-15-2004, 09:58 AM
They did not make it illegal to fund any stem cell research. All Bush did was say he was not going to sign any legistlation giving federal money to that type of research.
That was the point he was trying to make. It just came out sounding a little different than he intended.

DanMc
11-15-2004, 10:09 AM
That was the point he was trying to make. It just came out sounding a little different than he intended.

So why are so many people bitching so loudly about it? Drug companies are a huge ass scam as it is they make enough money to fund their own ideas. Why should so much **** keep coming out of our pcokets? I understand the illnesses they are claiming such things will help but at this point its all a pipe dream. Simply a direction they are just now looking into not a cure all by any means.

youngvet1
11-15-2004, 10:14 AM
Please, demonstrate how this has been the worst presidency in our history??? I'd love to see someone finally back that up with evidence...




Ok take notes I dont want to have to do this again, these are the things loved and cherished by people who live in US and by other countries feelings about the US that BUSH has completely alienated and violated.


1. Trust of doing the right thing and going to war with the right reasons. We still dont know the reasoning of going to war with iraq vs. other places vs. just using that money-- heres a far out idea to fight terrorism. Was it just to divert out attention from saudi arabia?

2. Did not veto any bill before him unlike any other president in US history. Were these bills that good compared to any other time in history or was he just reckless? you decide. This has drove the deficit even further out of control.

3. Has completely alienated the rest of the world and has turned america into an us vs. the world type of country. This is a HUGE mistake. We are the strongest SINGLE country in the world but I emphasize single.

4. His tax cuts to the rich: FAILED. It did not help the economy all it did was give his buddies new yachts. And thus has dorve us into a seeemingly insurmountable deficit hole.

And we all in our hearts have a gut feeling that Bush is in fadct corrupt either blatantly or just with power.

Brinn
11-15-2004, 10:26 AM
So why are so many people bitching so loudly about it? Drug companies are a huge ass scam as it is they make enough money to fund their own ideas. Why should so much **** keep coming out of our pcokets? I understand the illnesses they are claiming such things will help but at this point its all a pipe dream. Simply a direction they are just now looking into not a cure all by any means.
A lot of people are bitching about this. Nuggz wasn't one of them.

NuggzTheNinja
11-15-2004, 10:31 AM
Stem cells aren't a pipe dream. They're viable for producing replacement limbs and organs. You aren't a scientist, so I don't expect you to understand why.

On the other hand, drug companies have a habit of "inventing diseases". They create criterion for ADD and ADHD and then try to tell you that it's an actual disorder. They create all sorts of SSRIs (that in actual practice are known to cause brain damage with prolonged use) and tell you that being depressed is a disorder. It's rediculous...

Drug companies are creating illnesses so they can sell you drugs. This is a LOT different than stem cell research. Stem cell research is to progress the medical profession's ability to provide care to patients for which there exists no treatment. These drugs are really just ways of making money, and are completely independent of the medical profession itself.

By saying "oh it's not like there'll be a cure for *insert disease* in two years, why should we even try?", you're condemning people who may suffer from that in the future to the same fate. Why, if we knew that getting aircraft to work properly would be a total bitch, did we continue development? Some people have a scope that reaches farther into the future than a bible thumper reaching for the TV remote, or a beer, or both.

It's absolutely imperative to make the distinction between new technology that saves lives, and new technology that makes people money.

DanMc
11-15-2004, 10:38 AM
Stem cells aren't a pipe dream. They're viable for producing replacement limbs and organs. You aren't a scientist, so I don't expect you to understand why.

On the other hand, drug companies have a habit of "inventing diseases". They create criterion for ADD and ADHD and then try to tell you that it's an actual disorder. They create all sorts of SSRIs (that in actual practice are known to cause brain damage with prolonged use) and tell you that being depressed is a disorder. It's rediculous...

Drug companies are creating illnesses so they can sell you drugs. This is a LOT different than stem cell research. Stem cell research is to progress the medical profession's ability to provide care to patients for which there exists no treatment. These drugs are really just ways of making money, and are completely independent of the medical profession itself.

By saying "oh it's not like there'll be a cure for *insert disease* in two years, why should we even try?", you're condemning people who may suffer from that in the future to the same fate. Why, if we knew that getting aircraft to work properly would be a total bitch, did we continue development? Some people have a scope that reaches farther into the future than a bible thumper reaching for the TV remote, or a beer, or both.


Never said why try but why should tax dollars be the mainstay of the research. They claim there is not enough money for this or that. Yes I understand this had a lot to do with Bush and the religious beliefs..Maybe. Yet there is no real evidence you can make me walk again should I end up in a wheelchair. It’s an assumption of a cure and nothing more.

DanMc
11-15-2004, 10:42 AM
Ok take notes I dont want to have to do this again, these are the things loved and cherished by people who live in US and by other countries feelings about the US that BUSH has completely alienated and violated.


1. Trust of doing the right thing and going to war with the right reasons. We still dont know the reasoning of going to war with iraq vs. other places vs. just using that money-- heres a far out idea to fight terrorism. Was it just to divert out attention from saudi arabia?

2. Did not veto any bill before him unlike any other president in US history. Were these bills that good compared to any other time in history or was he just reckless? you decide. This has drove the deficit even further out of control.

3. Has completely alienated the rest of the world and has turned america into an us vs. the world type of country. This is a HUGE mistake. We are the strongest SINGLE country in the world but I emphasize single.

4. His tax cuts to the rich: FAILED. It did not help the economy all it did was give his buddies new yachts. And thus has dorve us into a seeemingly insurmountable deficit hole.

And we all in our hearts have a gut feeling that Bush is in fadct corrupt either blatantly or just with power.


Your bitching and rehashing old **** not stating any facts of how it is the worsed.. You'll need to make some claimes of what was better and or state a time where it was any different than now.

NuggzTheNinja
11-15-2004, 10:47 AM
It's not about tax dollars. It's about having the right to research such things.

Do you know what your tax dollars are spent on?

I don't want my tax dollars going into a defense budget of world conquest proportions. That's not on my "list of sh-t I need to do today"...what *is*, is research, and I don't want some bible humping fratboy to tell me what I can and can not research.

youngvet1
11-15-2004, 10:51 AM
It's not about tax dollars. It's about having the right to research such things.

Do you know what your tax dollars are spent on?

I don't want my tax dollars going into a defense budget of world conquest proportions. That's not on my "list of sh-t I need to do today"...what *is*, is research, and I don't want some bible humping fratboy to tell me what I can and can not research.

exactly. If you only knew some of the stupid things they use tax dollars for this would be on your top priority in comparison to some other stuff. All these holy people who are chugging booze and fronicating saying its wrong its wrong....
What is wrong is a person who cant walk and not searching for the answer for them once and for all. Let these "holy people" be parylized and see if they change their tune.

Brinn
11-15-2004, 10:54 AM
I don't want some bible humping fratboy to tell me what I can and can not research.
I thought you agreed that there was no restriction on stem cell research.

NuggzTheNinja
11-15-2004, 11:20 AM
The literature states a "ban" on stem cell research.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6240794/

This has nothing to do with allocating tax dollars.
The government doesn't spend your tax dollars on research. Research is privately funded.

The govenment *does*, however, ban you from conducting certain types of research. In this case, they're pushing to ban research on stem cells.

DanMc
11-15-2004, 11:24 AM
I thought you agreed that there was no restriction on stem cell research.

that was my thought ...

My tax dollors should go to protecting the country and I should be paying a lot less for the services that are being provided....

sculli
11-15-2004, 12:00 PM
So how is advocating leaving before the mission is done and looking weak going to help the miltiary ?

It happened in Vietnam, Iran, Beirut and Somalia. Our enemies saw the US as a strong opponent, but all they have to do is get a few casualties on the tv stations and the nation caves.

Tet offensive whiped out the VC as a fighting force and the US won every battle. Yet it was shown as a lost by Chronkite and the rest of the media.

Somalia, a company of Rangers and Delta squadron complete the mission, end up killing/wounding more then 1000 enemies compared to 100 US casualties, and the US freaks out and demends they come home.
Who's leaving what? 1/3 of my unit just got shipped to Iraq a few months ago and another 1/3 will be going to Afghanistan in January. And yes Bush is pro-military.

Steinkalt
11-15-2004, 01:38 PM
becuase Bush has never hugged a tree in his life.

Brinn
11-15-2004, 01:57 PM
The literature states a "ban" on stem cell research.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6240794/

This has nothing to do with allocating tax dollars.
The government doesn't spend your tax dollars on research. Research is privately funded.

The govenment *does*, however, ban you from conducting certain types of research. In this case, they're pushing to ban research on stem cells.
I think the government does have a role here. There are ethical issues that need to be addressed. You obviously disagree with where the Bush administration drew the line. However, I don't think this ban would cover multipotent stem cells. In theory, any cure derived from multipotent stem cells would be equally as effective as one derived from embryonic stem cells.

Marv
11-15-2004, 10:47 PM
ROFLCOPTER :D Did you see the South Park where they clowned on P.Diddy for that????

Yeah. This season's South Park is probably the funniest it's been in a few years.

Diesel66
11-16-2004, 06:33 AM
The literature states a "ban" on stem cell research.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6240794/

This has nothing to do with allocating tax dollars.
The government doesn't spend your tax dollars on research. Research is privately funded.

The govenment *does*, however, ban you from conducting certain types of research. In this case, they're pushing to ban research on stem cells.

All 191 U.N. members agree on a treaty that would prohibit the cloning of human beings. But they are sharply divided over whether to allow the cloning of human embryos for stem cell or similar research, known as “therapeutic cloning.”

Supporters of a broad global treaty banning all forms of cloning, led by the United States and Costa Rica, view therapeutic cloning as the taking of human lives.



Ban on cloning for stem cell research.

juicedgixxer
11-16-2004, 07:46 AM
He gave a tax cut to everyone. The fact that you don't know this means you either area A) uneduated or B) not old enough to pay taxes, and therefore not old enough to vote.



If you want to get technical about it yes he did give tax cut to everyone. Look at the averages. Anyone making 1 million gets average of 110k. Upper middle class making 55k hmm.. 600 bucks. Thats under 2 dollars a day. Bush can take those tax cuts and shove it.

youngvet1
11-16-2004, 08:50 AM
If you want to get technical about it yes he did give tax cut to everyone. Look at the averages. Anyone making 1 million gets average of 110k. Upper middle class making 55k hmm.. 600 bucks. Thats under 2 dollars a day. Bush can take those tax cuts and shove it.

Exactly.

Brinn
11-16-2004, 11:38 AM
If you want to get technical about it yes he did give tax cut to everyone. Look at the averages. Anyone making 1 million gets average of 110k. Upper middle class making 55k hmm.. 600 bucks. Thats under 2 dollars a day. Bush can take those tax cuts and shove it.
You're making up numbers. Here's a left leaning analysis:

http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

The top 1% of earners make 19% of all total income yet pay 25% of taxes. Are you going to argue the fairness of that?

youngvet1
11-16-2004, 11:50 AM
You're making up numbers. Here's a left leaning analysis:

http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

The top 1% of earners make 19% of all total income yet pay 25% of taxes. Are you going to argue the fairness of that?


That link didnt HELP your case very much.

Brinn
11-16-2004, 12:00 PM
That link didnt HELP your case very much.
I know what it said (I did mention their bias). They're trying to put their own spin on things. They carefully avoided putting out how much total taxes each group pays. That would have given a better picture of things which they wouldn't want. Still, the top 1% getting back $34K is a far cry from juicedgixxer's $110K.

Newbtime
11-20-2004, 08:04 AM
and to think you people voted for this man

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/bushuncensored.html

NuggzTheNinja
11-20-2004, 08:13 AM
Is that the one where he's pounding back a shot, or the one where he flips off the camera like an 8 yr old?

Newbtime
11-20-2004, 08:14 AM
one when he flips off camrea like a 8 yr old

sharkness
01-04-2005, 09:27 PM
OK. I just want to know why exactly you voted for Bush. So far i have heard why people don't like Kerry but nothing about the reasons that you actually like Bush. Here is your chance to explain why you voted the way you did. Everyone keeps saying that all the rednecks voted for him, i do not believe so, there must have been plenty of intelligent people that voted for him? Can someone please enlighten me?

Try to keep this civilized but prolly not gonna happen.
he will bring the fight to the ememy!

AntonToo
01-04-2005, 09:53 PM
yeah man, i just joined the Air Force, i want a president that will support the troops, not some dumb prick who protested soldiers and threw away his medals in vietnam.

Yea all those dumb pricks that came back with nothing but blood on their hands and their friend's tags, just make sure same thing doesn't happen to you.

dave22
01-04-2005, 09:55 PM
Now let me explain what everyone says how John Kerry is a flip flop and then u will see that he is actually the only stand up person that was going to challenge Bush's dictatorship.


Bush's dictatorship??? Lost just a little bit of credibility there buddy.

powerman2000
01-04-2005, 10:06 PM
I voted for GW because he stands for what I believe are essential Christian beliefs. Anti-abortion, Anti-homosexuality, pro-family, pro-life, and he is also more fiscally conservative. I also like his military position and leadership. He is also very personable and not creepy like Mr. Kerry.

AntonToo
01-04-2005, 10:36 PM
and he is also more fiscally conservative.

This is not a discussion, but I can still comment:

AHHAAHAAHHAAHHAAHAH

dave22
01-04-2005, 11:46 PM
I voted for GW because he stands for what I believe are essential Christian beliefs. Anti-abortion, Anti-homosexuality, pro-family, pro-life, and he is also more fiscally conservative. I also like his military position and leadership. He is also very personable and not creepy like Mr. Kerry.

Well if he's anti-abortion, then he's going to be pro-life.

Also isn't there a rumor out there that Bush got some girl knocked up, and she got an abortion?? But I guess this was before he found Jesus right??

And how can he be conservative when he's spending so much money??

juicedgixxer
01-05-2005, 07:37 AM
You're making up numbers. Here's a left leaning analysis:

http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

The top 1% of earners make 19% of all total income yet pay 25% of taxes. Are you going to argue the fairness of that?


I am not making up these numbers. Your link provides evidence as well as many others that can be easily found.

Of course the top percent of earners should pay more. You expect a equal percentage tax? You want a single mother to pay the same percentage tax as say, Dick Cheney? You tell me how fair is that. Plus top earners use use many ways to to evade taxes.