PDA

View Full Version : Bush Rhetoric



t411
04-21-2004, 08:35 AM
Bushes Rhetoric
“I said when I was running for President, I supported ethanol, and I meant it. (Applause.) I support it now, because not only do I know it's important for the ag sector of our economy, it's an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.” – Bush at South Dakota Ethanol Plant 4/24/02

Reality
According to the AP, Bush’s 2004 budget proposes to eliminate funding for the bioenergy program that funds the Dakota Ethanol Plant he visited. [4/22/02]

eg8r
04-21-2004, 08:47 AM
Oooops.

I guess I am wrong, this is one single example of Bush reducing government spending. Any other examples, this man is a spend-aholic.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
04-21-2004, 08:49 AM
Maybe Cargill and ADM forgot to write the check for the canpaign cash they promised /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
04-21-2004, 08:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote t411:</font><hr>
...I supported ethanol..<hr /></blockquote>

I also support ethanol /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif though not in that particular form

t411
04-21-2004, 08:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote t411:</font><hr>
...I supported ethanol..<hr /></blockquote>

I also support ethanol /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif though not in that particular form <hr /></blockquote>

Hey Wally, I like that one. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

t411
04-21-2004, 08:59 AM
Bush Rhetoric

“We've got to do more to protect worker pensions.” – Bush, 8/7/02

Reality
Just four months after touting pension security, Bush’s Treasury Department announced plans to propose new rules that “would allow employers to resume converting traditional pension plans to new ‘cash balance’ plans that can lower benefits to long-serving workers. Such conversions are highly controversial. Critics contend that they discriminate against older workers in violation of federal law” [Washington Post, 12/10/02]

Qtec
04-21-2004, 11:26 AM
Oh I see. If Kerry changes his mind you call it filp-ploppig. If GW does it, its called reducing spending!!!!

Do you know how ridiculous you sound?

Wake up.

Q { I would personally call it fraud]

Nightstalker
04-21-2004, 11:29 AM
Nice, quote the foaming-at-the-mouth liberal biased Washington post until you are blue in the face. It will not change anything.

Qtec
04-21-2004, 11:32 AM
What quote?

q

Nightstalker
04-21-2004, 11:44 AM
this one: Just four months after touting pension security, Bush’s Treasury Department announced plans to propose new rules that “would allow employers to resume converting traditional pension plans to new ‘cash balance’ plans that can lower benefits to long-serving workers. Such conversions are highly controversial. Critics contend that they discriminate against older workers in violation of federal law” [Washington Post, 12/10/02]

I know you did not post it, my reply was not aimed at you. Sorry for any confusuon.

t411
04-21-2004, 12:50 PM
Bush Rhetoric
“Our workers are the most productive, the hardest working, the best craftsmen in the world. And I'm here to thank all those who work hard to make a living here in America.” – Bush, 9/2/02

Reality
Bush’s 2003 Budget proposed a 9% ($476 million) cut to job training programs and a 2% ($8 million) cut to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Similarly, his 2004 budget proposes a $60 million cut to adult job training programs and a total elimination of the Youth Opportunities Grants, which provide job training to younger workers.

eg8r
04-21-2004, 12:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]

Oh I see. If Kerry changes his mind you call it filp-ploppig. If GW does it, its called reducing spending!!!!

Do you know how ridiculous you sound?

Wake up. <hr /></blockquote> This is stupidity. I don't even think you understand what my post was talking about, but that would not matter to you anyways. Thanks for playing.

eg8r &lt;~~~Jeesh, I cannot even knock on Bush without Q acting ridiculous and mouthing off about something irrelavent

t411
04-21-2004, 12:59 PM
<font color="blue"> and more Bush Rhetoric
“I want to thank the good folks here at Rochester Community and Technical College for your hospitality…The most important issue -- the most important issue for any governor in any state is to make sure every single child in your state receives a quality education.” – Bush, [10/18/02]
Reality
Bush’s 2004 budget proposes to cut vocational and technical education grants by 24% ($307 million). His budget also proposes to freeze funding for pell grants for low income students.
</font color>

eg8r
04-21-2004, 01:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Bush’s 2003 Budget proposed a 9% ($476 million) cut to job training programs and a 2% ($8 million) cut to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Similarly, his 2004 budget proposes a $60 million cut to adult job training programs and a total elimination of the Youth Opportunities Grants, which provide job training to younger workers.
<hr /></blockquote> Please explain why the government should be footing the bill for job training?

As far as the OSHA example, this is nothing different than my company cutting our budget and asking us to keep up the good work with less budget. Don't you think there might have been some fluff that could be removed within OSHA's payroll?

eg8r &lt;~~~sees another example of Bush cutting government spending, I really am surprised

t411
04-21-2004, 01:07 PM
<font color="green"> Does The rhetoric ever stop
Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are -- should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way.” – Bush, 1/17/03
Reality
Bush's visit came on the same day that the Administration announced it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system approximately 164,000 veterans [W. Post, 1/17/03].
</font color>

eg8r
04-21-2004, 01:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Bush’s 2004 budget proposes to cut vocational and technical education grants by 24% ($307 million). His budget also proposes to freeze funding for pell grants for low income students.
<hr /></blockquote> Ouch, could he possibly be forcing the kids going to college to actually study before they get to college (thus forcing them to earn a scholarship)? There are so many people who fluff off during school, knowing that whatever their situation (poor, etc), they will get their college paid for them.

Someone please explain where in our Constitution it says the government should foot the bill for higher education? The students went to school for free all the way from Kindergarten through 12th grade. Why shouldn't these kids be responsible for their grades and win scholarships if they wish to further their education in the same "free" manner?

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
04-21-2004, 01:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote t411:</font><hr> Bush Rhetoric
“Our workers are the most productive, the hardest working, the best craftsmen in the world. And I'm here to thank all those who work hard to make a living here in America.” – Bush, 9/2/02

Reality
Bush’s 2003 Budget proposed a 9% ($476 million) cut to job training programs and a 2% ($8 million) cut to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Similarly, his 2004 budget proposes a $60 million cut to adult job training programs and a total elimination of the Youth Opportunities Grants, which provide job training to younger workers.
<hr /></blockquote>

I'm not sure federal job training programs really work all that well. And we're spending $5 billion on it? That's frightening.

And cutting OSHA's budget is ok by me, as long as OSHA doesn't try to make it up by levying heavier fines against business.

eg8r
04-21-2004, 01:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are -- should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way.” – Bush, 1/17/03
Reality
Bush's visit came on the same day that the Administration announced it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system approximately 164,000 veterans [W. Post, 1/17/03].
<hr /></blockquote> Are these two the same thing...Current soldiers fighting in a war, and veterans who are no longer fighting in any wars?

Sure, I don't understand the cutting funding for the veterans, but given the context of the first quote, I don't think the second one is in the same category.

eg8r

t411
04-21-2004, 01:14 PM
<font color="red"> Rhetoric
“I want to thank the Boys &amp; Girls Clubs across the country…The Boys &amp; Girls Club have got a grand history of helping children understand the future is bright for them, as well as any other child in America. Boys &amp; Girls Clubs have been safe havens. They're little beacons of light for children who might not see light. And I want to thank them for their service to the country. Part of the vision for America is that we have a mosaic of all kinds of people providing love and comfort for people who need help.” – Bush, 1/30/03
Reality
In his 2002 budget, Bush proposed eliminating all federal funding for the Boys and Girls Club of America. IN his 2003 budget, he proposed cutting the program by 15% (from $70 million down to $60 million).
</font color>

eg8r
04-21-2004, 01:26 PM
Once again, I question if the two are the same thing? Nothing in the "rhetoric" section states budget, rather praise for the good things being done. In your "reality" section you mention budget.

eg8r

t411
04-21-2004, 01:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote> Are these two the same thing...Current soldiers fighting in a war, and veterans who are no longer fighting in any wars?

Sure, I don't understand the cutting funding for the veterans, but given the context of the first quote, I don't think the second one is in the same category.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Sure, forget the MFers.........lot of respect for veterans.
Same category? I guess Bush sees it your way
OK, maybe I shouldn't say it that way, I know you (eg8r) did not say that but I sure some veterans feel that way.

nAz
04-21-2004, 01:30 PM
"In his 2002 budget, Bush proposed eliminating all federal funding for the Boys and Girls Club of America. IN his 2003 budget, he proposed cutting the program by 15% (from $70 million down to $60 million)"

Can somone please tell me why the federal goverment should be flipping the bill for these children? don't they have parents that can pay for it??? lol /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
04-21-2004, 01:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote t411:</font><hr> ...Bush’s 2003 Budget proposed a 9% ($476 million) cut to job training programs ... <hr /></blockquote>

You know what the best "job-training program" would be? Cut the minimum wage to $3 per hour or just eliminate it. Then employees could afford to bring on unskilled employees and train them. They can do ten times better than the gummint in training folks.

SPetty
04-21-2004, 01:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote t411:</font><hr>for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way<hr /></blockquote> Are these two the same thing...Current soldiers fighting in a war, and veterans who are no longer fighting in any wars?<hr /></blockquote>Yes, absolutely, they are the same thing when referring to people willing to put their life in harm's way as a member of the US armed forces.

Wally_in_Cincy
04-21-2004, 01:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote t411:</font><hr> ...the Administration announced it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system approximately 164,000 veterans [W. Post, 1/17/03].
<hr /></blockquote>

That's quite a statement there. Is there any context to this? They just arbitrarily cut benefits?

Wally~~doesn't keep up with veterans affairs and doesn't trust the W Post.

moblsv
04-21-2004, 01:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Please explain why the government should be footing the bill for job training?<hr /></blockquote>

Educated people tend to make more money and pay more taxes. It's similar to the arguement of all the taxes I pay to public schools even though I don't have kids. We all benefit from the increased taxes they pay when they make more money, the lower crime, the person who can get off welfare, the contributions to the economy through educated labor, etc.

t411
04-21-2004, 02:05 PM
<font color="purple"> My point here with the rhetoric reality thing (and I can go on all day) is that the republican party is for the status quo. There is plenty wrong with both parties, money runs this country. A third party just divides the "have not". Something need to be done about how money runs our great country because the average Joe is loosing his voice. </font color>

highsea
04-21-2004, 02:06 PM
These quotes don't hold much credibility with me. Please provide your source article.

Politicians from both sides are always screaming about "cuts" which are not really cuts. Give us the actual dollar amounts being spent.

If a Federal program is slated for a 15% increase, but only gets a 5% increase, the opposing party always screams about the 10% "cut" in funding.

-CM

eg8r
04-21-2004, 02:34 PM
You still don't mention why that "should" be the government's job. The weight should be on the employers shoulders. The government should not be paying for job training.

eg8r

t411
04-21-2004, 02:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> These quotes don't hold much credibility with me. Please provide your source article.

Politicians from both sides are always screaming about "cuts" which are not really cuts. Give us the actual dollar amounts being spent.

If a Federal program is slated for a 15% increase, but only gets a 5% increase, the opposing party always screams about the 10% "cut" in funding.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

They are as credible as any of the other post on here for either candidate. I got a lot of them from just surfing the web, just like the most of the things that are put on here. My point is that the two parties support different thing and we all know it. A lot of people really do not know what each party is about.

<font color="red"> If a Federal program is slated for a 15% increase, but only gets a 5% increase, the opposing party always screams about the 10% "cut" in funding. </font color> You are right about this and it goes both ways.

eg8r
04-21-2004, 02:36 PM
Read the context of the two...The first Bush is talking about current members serving right now in combat. The second is referring to veterans who are not in harms way. While their jobs were the same when the latter was still employed, they both are not the same right now.

eg8r

eg8r
04-21-2004, 02:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Sure, forget the MFers <hr /></blockquote> LOL, your response is pretty funny. I don't think you are even trying to understand the difference. I stated in the last part of my post I did not understand the reduction for veterans, however I still don't think comparing the two makes any sense. It is like comparing apples and oranges...Your only argument would be that the two are fruits.

eg8r

eg8r
04-21-2004, 02:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
My point is that the two parties support different thing and we all know it. <hr /></blockquote> If one was to read only your posts on this thread, do you honestly think they would understand the quote above? You have not mentioned anything from another party, rather you just mentioned Bush. I think your point was to try and find manipulative ways to show Bush in a negative light (nothing wrong with this, just say it like it is). Some could be true however there are others I don't think make much sense. With that being said, you have made zero attempt to mention both parties as your above quote would suggest.

eg8r

highsea
04-21-2004, 02:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote t411:</font><hr> They are as credible as any of the other post on here for either candidate. I got a lot of them from just surfing the web, just like the most of the things that are put on here...<hr /></blockquote>

OK, I did a little surfing myself and found your source.

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

The democratic party. I think the proper title for this thread would be "Democrat's Rhetoric"

-CM

eg8r
04-21-2004, 02:47 PM
LOL, he mentioned he could go on all day. Bull, I say. He has already used half of them up. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Keep going.

eg8r

Nightstalker
04-21-2004, 02:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote t411:</font><hr> They are as credible as any of the other post on here for either candidate. I got a lot of them from just surfing the web, just like the most of the things that are put on here...<hr /></blockquote>

OK, I did a little surfing myself and found your source.

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

The democratic party. I think the proper title for this thread would be "Democrat's Rhetoric"

-CM <hr /></blockquote>
No wonder he never mentioned where those came from!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

moblsv
04-21-2004, 05:38 PM
Because I, and millions of other Americans who vote and pay taxes, want to live in a society that promotes education. That is why government MUST help people who are willing to help themselves.

The people who will not help themselves are a different story and I would bet our opinions on what to do about that are similar.

Nightstalker
04-21-2004, 06:38 PM
Does anyone else find it just so surprising to be reading Bush rhetoric from a website which has democrat in the URL? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

pooljunkie73
04-21-2004, 07:11 PM
It is times like these that i am glad i am Canadian. We may be screwed up but, we don't have to put up with this much mud slinging during election time.

Kent Mc.

Qtec
04-21-2004, 08:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You know what the best "job-training program" would be? Cut the minimum wage to $3 per hour or just eliminate it. <hr /></blockquote>

Or better still, dont pay them at all. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Unbelieveable!

Q

t411
04-21-2004, 09:52 PM
LOL, he mentioned he could go on all day. Bull, I say. He has already used half of them up. Keep going.

eg8r

eg8r, do you think that this is the only site on the web trashing Bush? The sites are not hard to find, you know that.

Qtec
04-21-2004, 10:08 PM
"The White House has declined to discuss details of the limitations it has sought on the interviews with Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney but has said the administration wants to cooperate fully with the commission, known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.


The panel members, interviewed after a private meeting on Tuesday, said the commission had decided for now to reject a White House request that the interview with Mr. Bush be limited to one hour and that the questioners be only the panel's chairman and vice chairman."



One hour.

It must be obvious even to you that GW puts his own political future above the safety of the people of America.

One hour. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Q

t411
04-22-2004, 12:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
My point is that the two parties support different thing and we all know it. <hr /></blockquote> If one was to read only your posts on this thread, do you honestly think they would understand the quote above? You have not mentioned anything from another party, rather you just mentioned Bush. I think your point was to try and find manipulative ways to show Bush in a negative light (nothing wrong with this, just say it like it is). Some could be true however there are others I don't think make much sense. With that being said, you have made zero attempt to mention both parties as your above quote would suggest.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

(nothing wrong with this, just say it like it is)
<font color="red">Say it like it is?……eg8r your pretty bright, no denying that. I thought it was obvious, I was not trying to disguise or manipulate anything. I did not think that I had to spell out the obvious. </font color>
With that being said, you have made zero attempt to mention both parties as your above quote would suggest. <font color="red">eg8r, I can see how one might that I was trying to talk about both parties, but that really was not my intention. I did start this thread, look at the title of it. I see enough post on here that to me characterize the democratic party….. hmm….. should I say wrong (imo). Now, if you think that I characterize Bush or the republican party in a bad light, well that’s your opinion, I can respect that but I think I hit the nail on the head. </font color>

t411
04-22-2004, 12:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Sure, forget the MFers <hr /></blockquote> LOL, your response is pretty funny. I don't think you are even trying to understand the difference. I stated in the last part of my post I did not understand the reduction for veterans, however I still don't think comparing the two makes any sense. It is like comparing apples and oranges...Your only argument would be that the two are fruits.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> egr8, at least you can see that cutting funding for vets is wrong. </font color>
I don't think you are even trying to understand the difference. <font color="blue">I see what you are saying, but really I think you are splitting hairs. Tell the veterans that there is a difference when they have or could have been put in harms way. When they joined the service they expected to be taken care of. Now that they are retired they should still expect it. Better yet tell the soldiers that are fighting now what to expect when they retire. </font color>

highsea
04-22-2004, 03:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote t411:</font><hr> <font color="blue"> egr8, at least you can see that cutting funding for vets is wrong. </font color>
I don't think you are even trying to understand the difference. <hr /></blockquote>

T, again, SHOW ME THE MONEY!

This is ALL talk. The president of the US, be him a dem or a rep, CANNOT change law. He can recommend, cajole, and within very narrow circumstances execute executive orders.

So exactly when and how did Bush take away these veterans benefits? The facts, please, sir. Keep it simple for a poor country boy like myself. Something I can verify would be nice.

BTW Ed, and fwiw, you're defending GW against something that never happened.

-CM

highsea
04-22-2004, 04:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote t411:</font><hr> They are as credible as any of the other post on here for either candidate. I got a lot of them from just surfing the web, just like the most of the things that are put on here...<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote t411:</font><hr> I was not trying to disguise or manipulate anything. I did not think that I had to spell out the obvious. <hr /></blockquote>

LOL

-CM

Nightstalker
04-22-2004, 05:43 AM
That's right, t411. Those sites in your favorties which you post info from on here are all over the net! Yay for all the retarded Bush bashing sites! You're only posting the comments and not the source yet you're not trying to disguise or manipulate anything right? Tell us another one hombre. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
04-22-2004, 05:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Or better still, dont pay them at all.

Unbelieveable!
<hr /></blockquote> More complete stupidity from Q. Wally is talking about government intervention in the private business sector. He is not even talking about not paying anyone, just reducing the amount of control the government has over private business.

I guess I am a bit slow, but I have come to the conclusion that no one would post such stupidity and actually mean it, so you are off the hook. You are merely here as a troll. If you would even put forth the tiniest bit of effort to use your brain before your "fingers" hit the keys this kind of reply would not be needed. You are sticking up for the people when they are not even the subject matter and they really don't need your help. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
04-22-2004, 06:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
eg8r, do you think that this is the only site on the web trashing Bush? The sites are not hard to find, you know that <hr /></blockquote> So is this what you are doing...Using your "resources" to trash Bush. Here is a quote of yours from yesterday... [ QUOTE ]
My point is that the two parties support different thing and we all know it. A lot of people really do not know what each party is about.
<hr /></blockquote> Is this the best way you know how to get your point across...quoting a site that trashes Bush? What you say your point is, really is not your point at all, as you have never mentioned (or as you call it "trash") the other side. We know what the point is, and you have said it just fine in the first quote...Your point is to trash Bush. It is that easy, nothing wrong with doing it, but don't lie about it.

eg8r

nhp
04-22-2004, 06:07 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Having been here and seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We are -- should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way.” – Bush, 1/17/03
Reality
Bush's visit came on the same day that the Administration announced it is immediately cutting off access to its health care system approximately 164,000 veterans [W. Post, 1/17/03].
<hr /></blockquote> Are these two the same thing...Current soldiers fighting in a war, and veterans who are no longer fighting in any wars?

Sure, I don't understand the cutting funding for the veterans, but given the context of the first quote, I don't think the second one is in the same category.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I'm not in the mood to argue about anything these days, but I'll bite here. Veterans and active duty soldiers deserve the same thing. I sustained a permanent back injury while serving in the US Army, I feel I deserve every benefit I recieve. My father was a POW, he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder, I feel he deserves every benefit he recieves (he is a 100% disabled veteran).

Just the same as every brave soldier serving our country right now, veterans and active duty alike should all recieve the same type of treatment, IMO.

eg8r
04-22-2004, 06:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not in the mood to argue about anything these days, but I'll bite here. Veterans and active duty soldiers deserve the same thing. I sustained a permanent back injury while serving in the US Army, I feel I deserve every benefit I recieve. My father was a POW, he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder, I feel he deserves every benefit he recieves (he is a 100% disabled veteran).

Just the same as every brave soldier serving our country right now, veterans and active duty alike should all recieve the same type of treatment, IMO. <hr /></blockquote> While I agree you should receive the benefits you are getting, I still don't see the comparison between the two. Once again, the only comparison between apples and oranges is that they are fruit. When Bush is talking about making sure the health care for the current soldiers fighting is top notch, that is not the same thing as when referring to veterans. He is not mentioning the veterans or their health care. All he is mentioning is the fact that he wants to make sure the guys fighting get the best care possible. The quote that I replied to is trying to make a connection that just is not there.

eg8r

eg8r
04-22-2004, 06:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I see what you are saying, but really I think you are splitting hairs. Tell the veterans that there is a difference when they have or could have been put in harms way. When they joined the service they expected to be taken care of. Now that they are retired they should still expect it. Better yet tell the soldiers that are fighting now what to expect when they retire. <hr /></blockquote> I am not splitting hairs... I think the vets should still receive their care. I only reponded to the quote, because Bush was explicit about who he was referring to, and the "reality" section was mentioning a different group of people. If that is too hard to see, then so be it.

eg8r
04-22-2004, 06:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
BTW Ed, and fwiw, you're defending GW against something that never happened.
<hr /></blockquote> That is pleasing to hear, but I am not defending Bush per se, rather, I am just pointing out the quote is comparing apples and oranges.

eg8r

bluewolf
04-22-2004, 07:02 AM
Washington is sick. While america is called a democracy, is it really? IMO, it is totalitarian, run by a few, with little control in the hands of the ordinary citizen.

Capitalism has become so limited, by the removal of rights and excessive taxes that we fought against in the American revolution, what we have today bears little resemblance to the intentions of the founding fathers. JMO.

Laura

eg8r
04-22-2004, 07:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
While america is called a democracy <hr /></blockquote> A Republic?

[ QUOTE ]
what we have today bears little resemblance to the intentions of the founding fathers. <hr /></blockquote> What were their intentions? This is such an easy blanket statement to use, but rarely is it questioned. What is your view of what the founding fathers intended?

eg8r

Qtec
04-22-2004, 07:08 AM
Is America not a Democracy?

Q

t411
04-22-2004, 07:15 AM
Originally Posted by Nightstalker
That's right, t411. Those sites in your favorties which you post info from on here are all over the net! Yay for all the retarded Bush bashing sites! You're only posting the comments and not the source yet you're not trying to disguise or manipulate anything right? Tell us another one hombre.

<font color="blue"> Nightstalker, Is this not the same thing that you did here? Correct me if I'm wrong please.
eg8r I need some back up here please,.........ah, I see nightstalker, was not talking about Bush or the republican party. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
</font color>
Originally Posted by Nightstalker
I got something for these Kerry supporters to chew on!

Pro-war, anti-war, insider, outsider, liberal, conservative
The many faces of John Kerry

February 6, 2004 | Page 5

JOHN KERRY has pulled into the lead for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. According to the party establishment and the media, the key to the Massachusetts senator’s success is his "electability." In other words, even if tries on a bit of the liberal rhetoric here and there, Kerry is one candidate who George W. Bush and his advisers can never call "too radical."

But the flipside is that Kerry is a thoroughly inside insider in Washington. He has everything that Corporate America--and the Democratic Party establishment--want in the White House. ELIZABETH SCHULTE looks at John Kerry’s rotten record.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"A MAN defined by inner conflicts." That’s how the Boston Globe described John Kerry in a five-part series in June 2003. "The gung-ho Vietnam hero turned articulate antiwar protester; the shaggy-haired liberal rebel turned feisty prosecutor; a politician whose core beliefs included a skeptical view of government," wrote the Globe.

Sounds familiar? Someone wrote a book about it in the 1800s--it’s called Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. During his 19 years as a career politician and Washington insider, Kerry has never let a little thing like principle get in his way. He’s made a career out of balancing between the Democratic Party’s conservative and the liberal wings.

That’s why, last week in Greenville, S.C., Kerry declared that he was going to "hold Bush accountable" for the war in Iraq. But just as easily, he could boast to his Republican critics, "I have voted for the largest defense budgets in the history of our country."

Kerry has taken several liberal positions during his career, only to take them back years later. Since 1984, when he won his first campaign for a U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts, Kerry backed canceling weapons systems, such as the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, the Apache helicopter and the Patriot missile. Kerry now calls those positions "ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now, and the things that I’ve learned since then."

In the 1980s, Kerry harshly criticized Ronald Reagan’s order to invade the tiny island nation of Grenada in 1983. Today, he says: "I was dismissive of the majesty of the invasion of Grenada. But I basically was supportive. I never publicly opposed it."

Kerry voted against the congressional resolution authorizing military force in Iraq in 1990. But after Washington’s quick victory, Kerry did a quick turnaround and became a supporter of the war. Kerry’s own office could hardly keep up with the changes.

At one point, it mailed out letters to constituents that voiced both positions. Likewise, in October 2002, Kerry voted to give congressional authorization for Bush’s invasion of Iraq, only to criticize the war afterward.

To listen to Kerry criticize the civil liberties-shredding USA PATRIOT Act today, you’d never know that he voted for the legislation in 2001. "We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night," Kerry says today. "So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft."

During his 19-year career in the Senate, Kerry has also taken positions that are far from liberal. In 1992, he warned an audience at his alma mater, Yale University, about a "culture of dependency...We must ask whether [social disintegration] is the result of a massive shift in the psychology of our nation that some argue grew out of the excesses of the 1960s, a shift from self-reliance to indulgence and dependence, from caring to self-indulgence, from public accountability to public abdication and chaos."

"The truth is that affirmative action has kept America thinking in racial terms," he said. Kerry’s position was in line with the one that Bill Clinton was peddling with his call for "personal responsibility."

Kerry also supported Clinton’s welfare "reform," which tossed millions of poor people off the welfare rolls, or forced them into low-wage jobs. And Kerry can also take credit for helping to push through Clinton’s 1994 crime bill, which expanded the federal death penalty and included money to put 100,000 more cops on the street.

In 1994, Kerry took his conservative rhetoric up a notch after the Republican victory in congressional elections--arguing that Democrats were being punished for suggesting too-liberal policies, like universal health care.

Kerry also has a bad habit of bending the truth to play up his liberal credentials. During his 1984 campaign, he proudly described in campaign literature how he "joined the struggle for voting rights in the South," leaving the impression that he’d actually gone to the South. In reality, however, his work registering Black voters in Mississippi never went beyond the Yale campus.

When he needs to appeal to an antiwar audience, Kerry will pull out his history as a Vietnam War veteran who came home to oppose the war. After serving two tours in Vietnam, Kerry did become a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). But he was by no means a radical.

Kerry refused to speak at the VVAW’s January 1971 Winter Soldier Investigation, a series of hearings in Detroit in which soldiers spoke out against the atrocities that they witnessed in Vietnam. But he did agree to appear at a well-publicized Senate committee hearing--and put himself at the head of a demonstration organized later that year in Washington, D.C.

During the protest, veterans tossed their medals at the White House. Kerry kept his medals--but tossed his ribbons and medals that other soldiers had given him.

Only a few months after grabbing the spotlight, he left the organization. "I resigned and left [the VVAW] because the agenda of some of the folks within the veterans’ movement ultimately became confused and went way beyond just trying to end the war," said in an interview with the Boston Phoenix. "There was a lot of rhetoric about every social ill and evil there was." As his "yes" vote last year on Bush’s Iraq war shows, Kerry has moved "way beyond" any antiwar past that he might have had.


This man is no alternative

"I’VE GOT news for the HMOs and the big drug companies and the big oil companies and influence peddlers," Kerry declared in a speech last week in St. Louis. "We’re coming and you’re going. And don’t let the door hit you on the way out!" But if anyone knows where the influence is peddled, it’s John Kerry.

While his patrician family’s wealth had largely faded by the time that John was a teenager, they did "scrape up" enough to send the boy to a series of Swiss and New England boarding schools. That was followed by his father’s alma mater, Yale, where he was a member of the same elite Skull and Bones society that George Bush was.

He counted among his close friends Fred Smith, who would later found Federal Express, and Richard Pershing, the grandson of the famous First World War general. He dated Jacqueline Kennedy’s half-sister, Janet Auchincloss, and once hobnobbed with JFK sailing on Narragansett Bay.

Today, Kerry--the richest member of Congress--is worth an estimated $550 million, according to Forbes magazine. This is due in large part to the fortune of his wife, Teresa Heinz, the widow of Republican Sen. and ketchup tycoon John Heinz. So while he’s in Washington, Kerry lives in an elegant Georgetown house and has the option of using a private jet to get away at one of the Heinz vacation homes.

Federal election laws limit how much Kerry can use of his wife’s fortune to finance his own campaign. But she can get around that by buying "issue ads" which don’t mention the candidate.

And Teresa isn’t the only connection that John "I’ll take on special interests" Kerry has made in Washington. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, during this election cycle, Kerry took in $531,251 from the health care industry. This makes him one of the top four recipients of such money, just behind Bush, Howard Dean and Joe Lieberman.

Kerry was among the top 10 recipients of money from the airline and automotive industries, with donations totaling $87,925. By the way, Kerry is a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which influences laws governing these industries.

highsea
04-22-2004, 07:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr>Here is my problem- I've been with my girlfriend for nearly 2 years, I am 24 she is 21.

Then again, this is my first long relationship (2 years) as opposed to my 12 other girlfriends throughout my teens and early 20's (I'm 23) who only lasted 2 months max.

I am a 23 year old pool player from california. I have been playing pool seriously for about 8 years now.

I went to a pool hall I have never visited before yesterday. They had a 9-ball tournament going on, so I decided to join. They played me as an A player, which is the highest rating you can get.

Thanks for all the advice, I really appreciate it. The reason why I went to school in the first place is because it is my main priority. A few years ago I befriended some top players such as Ernesto Dominguez, Tang Hoa, and Santos Sambajon. All of them expressed I had a natural talent for the game. It was Ernesto Dominguez and Tang Hoa who actually steered me clear of quitting school.

In what way do most of you prefer to grip the cue? I have a few questions about this.

I sustained a permanent back injury while serving in the US Army, I feel I deserve every benefit I recieve. <hr /></blockquote>

So then you are a 23 or 24 year old college student from California who is an A player with 8 years of serious play, a permanently disabled Army veteran who wants to know how to hold a cue, and gets more ass than a toilet seat.

Can I have your autograph?

-CM~~ /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

eg8r
04-22-2004, 07:18 AM
A better description would be a Republic. This is what the founding fathers called it, and is that not the group of people Laura mentioned? If you are going to refer to that group of people and their intentions, should not the correct word be used?

Democracy also states it is a majority rule, however take a look at the elections for the President (electoral vote). How does this pertain to the portion of the definition speaking about majority rule?

eg8r

eg8r
04-22-2004, 07:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker:</font><hr> That's right, t411. Those sites in your favorties which you post info from on here are all over the net! Yay for all the retarded Bush bashing sites! You're only posting the comments and not the source yet you're not trying to disguise or manipulate anything right? Tell us another one hombre.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote t411:</font><hr> Nightstalker, Is this not the same thing that you did here? Correct me if I'm wrong please.
eg8r I need some back up here please,.........ah, I see nightstalker, was not talking about Bush or the republican party. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> What do you want me to say?

eg8r &lt;~~~did not need to know the source for t411's anti-bush propaganda

t411
04-22-2004, 07:46 AM
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> What do you want me to say?

eg8r &lt;~~~did not need to know the source for t411's anti-bush propaganda <hr /></blockquote>

You could have done better than that, but I'll settle for that. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
04-22-2004, 08:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Is America not a Democracy?

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Not exactly. It's a representative republic. A democracy means the majority rules.

In a true democracy, since there are more women than men, women could pass a law saying that all men had to work 60 hours a week and give half their money to women.

If there were more men than women, the men could legalize rape.

Despite its faults, I believe a republic works better.

bluewolf
04-22-2004, 08:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> what we have today bears little resemblance to the intentions of the founding fathers. <hr /></blockquote> What were their intentions? This is such an easy blanket statement to use, but rarely is it questioned. What is your view of what the founding fathers intended?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I think it would be more valuable to you as a citizen of this country to go back to the original constitution and read it for yourself. While there were provisions for amendments, when those ammendments are such that the original constitution beomes, at least in many areas, null and void for all practical purposes, there is indeed something wrong with this picture.

Rather than putting me, an ordinary citizen, exercizing one of the few original rights we have, freedom of speech on the hotseat of debate against an intractible mind, read the constitution yourself and get your head out of the sand enough to read some of the behind the line books that are now coming out.

Laura

Nightstalker
04-22-2004, 09:18 AM
t411, you missed the point as usual. Was I the one coming in here and claiming to be truthful and not misleading? That's right, it was not me, you were the one. You claim to be something that you are not so cut the charade because you are not going to fool anyone here. We are above the level of the type you are used to dealing with and will not succomb to your little scheme. If you want to lie, fine. Just say that is your plan rather than saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

eg8r
04-22-2004, 11:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be more valuable to you as a citizen of this country to go back to the original constitution and read it for yourself. <hr /></blockquote> I think you have the quotes mixed up in your post, however, that is besides the point. I was asking you what you felt their (founding fathers) intentions were, since you so boldly spoke for them.

eg8r

t411
04-22-2004, 11:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Nightstalker:</font><hr> t411, you missed the point as usual. Was I the one coming in here and claiming to be truthful and not misleading? That's right, it was not me, you were the one. You claim to be something that you are not so cut the charade because you are not going to fool anyone here. We are above the level of the type you are used to dealing with and will not succomb to your little scheme. If you want to lie, fine. Just say that is your plan rather than saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">Nightstalker, so I'm not truthful?,....hmmm......because I do not agree with you? Do I say that you lie because I do not agree with you, or your politics are not the same as mine, or that I think what you post is garbage? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif So what? We are different people, I don't walk in your shoes, you don't walk in mine. You said "You claim to be something that you are not so cut the charade because you are not going to fool anyone here". What did I claim do be? I don't ever think I claimed to be anything. Who are the type that I'm used to dealing with? Explain that please because you really do not know a lot about me. If you met me, I bet you would think that I'm quit a nice guy. I think Bush sucks as the president, so what, that's my right. I respect the fact that your politics are not the same as mine.You seem so angry with me, did I do something to you? Don't take things so personal. maybe it's me taking you too personal. If that's the case, I'm sorry. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

</font color>

eg8r
04-22-2004, 11:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Nightstalker, so I'm not truthful?,....hmmm......because I do not agree with you? Do I say that you lie because I do not agree with you, or your politics are not the same as mine, or that I think what you post is garbage? <hr /></blockquote> I hope I am not speaking for him, but I think he is referring to your lack of source information. Since you were not putting a link to your source or stating where you received the information he might have felt you were being a bit sneaky.

eg8r

t411
04-22-2004, 11:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Nightstalker, so I'm not truthful?,....hmmm......because I do not agree with you? Do I say that you lie because I do not agree with you, or your politics are not the same as mine, or that I think what you post is garbage? <hr /></blockquote> I hope I am not speaking for him, but I think he is referring to your lack of source information. Since you were not putting a link to your source or stating where you received the information he might have felt you were being a bit sneaky.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
I may be wrong, correct me if I'am, but I think what I posted had the papers that the came from. Like I said earlier /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Nightstalker
04-22-2004, 11:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote t411:</font><hr><font color="blue">Nightstalker, so I'm not truthful?,....hmmm......because I do not agree with you?<hr /></blockquote></font color>

No, where did I say that?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote t411:</font><hr><font color="blue">Do I say that you lie because I do not agree with you, or your politics are not the same as mine, or that I think what you post is garbage? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif So what? We are different people, I don't walk in your shoes, you don't walk in mine. You said "You claim to be something that you are not so cut the charade because you are not going to fool anyone here". What did I claim do be? I don't ever think I claimed to be anything.<hr /></blockquote></font color>
Errr....yes you did. Here it is, I will hand feed it to you since you are having trouble remembering.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote t411:</font><hr><font color="blue">
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are as credible as any of the other post on here for either candidate. I got a lot of them from just surfing the web, just like the most of the things that are put on here...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was not trying to disguise or manipulate anything. I did not think that I had to spell out the obvious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<hr /></blockquote></font color>


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote t411:</font><hr><font color="blue">You seem so angry with me, did I do something to you? Don't take things so personal. maybe it's me taking you too personal. If that's the case, I'm sorry. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif</font color><hr /></blockquote>
I am not angry with you, just a little put off by your tactics here. I am sorry if I seemed to have taken it personally, that is not the case. I merely wanted to get my point across to you in a way that I hoped you could understand, that is all.

eg8r
04-22-2004, 11:51 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I may be wrong, correct me if I'am, but I think what I posted had the papers that the came from. Like I said earlier <hr /></blockquote> That is not my business, I was just offering up one reason. As far as the papers being listed, what you failed list was the source who compiled the papers and put them together in a way to cast Bush in a negative light. Since this tone was quite evident it was not that important to me to know who exactly did the real work (I was quite positive it was not you who remembered all those quotes and cleverly put them together in a rhetoric/reality formation) as I guessed the real source would have been a liberal source with a strong bias.

Like I said, it did not bother me, but it appeared to bother him a bit. I was just offering up what I thought to be the reason behind his post.

eg8r

t411
04-22-2004, 12:07 PM
Errr....yes you did. Here it is, I will hand feed it to you since you are having trouble remembering.
<font color="red"> Quote t411:
They are as credible as any of the other post on here for either candidate. I got a lot of them from just surfing the web, just like the most of the things that are put on here...

I was not trying to disguise or manipulate anything. I did not think that I had to spell out the obvious.
</font color>
<font color="red"> "They are as credible as any of the other post on here for either candidate". </font color> <font color="blue"> I am talking about in the forum in general.
</font color>
<font color="blue"> When I said "I did not think that I had to spell out the obvious". I was talking about the obvious being that I was not a Bush supporter, and that I was the one who started this thread, in reference to the post by eg8r "If one was to read only your posts on this thread, do you honestly think they would understand the quote above? You have not mentioned anything from another party, rather you just mentioned Bush". The obvious to me was, why would I bring up Kerry. Any way, maybe I was not clear.
</font color>

eg8r
04-22-2004, 02:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Errr....yes you did. Here it is, I will hand feed it to you since you are having trouble remembering.
Quote t411:
They are as credible as any of the other post on here for either candidate. I got a lot of them from just surfing the web, just like the most of the things that are put on here...

I was not trying to disguise or manipulate anything. I did not think that I had to spell out the obvious.

"They are as credible as any of the other post on here for either candidate". I am talking about in the forum in general.

When I said "I did not think that I had to spell out the obvious". I was talking about the obvious being that I was not a Bush supporter, and that I was the one who started this thread, in reference to the post by eg8r "If one was to read only your posts on this thread, do you honestly think they would understand the quote above? You have not mentioned anything from another party, rather you just mentioned Bush". The obvious to me was, why would I bring up Kerry. Any way, maybe I was not clear.
<hr /></blockquote> Was this post mistakenly posted as a reply to my post? I did what (referring to the first sentence)?

eg8r

nhp
04-22-2004, 03:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Here is my problem- I've been with my girlfriend for nearly 2 years, I am 24 she is 21.

Then again, this is my first long relationship (2 years) as opposed to my 12 other girlfriends throughout my teens and early 20's (I'm 23) who only lasted 2 months max. <hr /></blockquote>

Yes, you really got me here. Right now I am actually only 23, my birthday is not for another two weeks. This has totally ruined my credibility, since I figured that since I am just about to turn 24, I can say I'm 24, it's a force of habit sometimes. I don't see why it's so hard to believe that someone has had a bunch of girlfriends in the past. Lets see, I live in Los Angeles, where there are millions of different types of girls everywhere, it's not hard. I am probably on par or maybe a little below average for alot of guys my age here...I know quite a few people who have had more girlfriends than me.

[ QUOTE ]
I went to a pool hall I have never visited before yesterday. They had a 9-ball tournament going on, so I decided to join. They played me as an A player, which is the highest rating you can get.
<hr /></blockquote>

I don't get it...I normally play as a B player, in some places I've gone I have been rated an A player, I can play pretty well sometimes...still want my autograph?

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for all the advice, I really appreciate it. The reason why I went to school in the first place is because it is my main priority. A few years ago I befriended some top players such as Ernesto Dominguez, Tang Hoa, and Santos Sambajon. All of them expressed I had a natural talent for the game. It was Ernesto Dominguez and Tang Hoa who actually steered me clear of quitting school.
<hr /></blockquote>

It's true they are my friends...in fact, tomorrow I'll be heading down to a tournament with Ernesto's son, Oscar Dominguez.

[ QUOTE ]
In what way do most of you prefer to grip the cue? I have a few questions about this.
<hr /></blockquote>

I have been studying the "hold" for a long time now, I have always felt it's an important aspect as to hell well one can strike the cueball. I am always looking for ways to improve my game.

[ QUOTE ]
I sustained a permanent back injury while serving in the US Army, I feel I deserve every benefit I recieve. <hr /></blockquote>

Its true...I can still walk, play pool, golf, etc. I can't A. lift very heavy things B. Do sit ups C. Stand up for long hours without resting. When I play pool for a long time, I always need a chair.

I have another friend on this board who is a good pool player and knows me in real life, and since you think it is impossible for someone to A. Have had a bunch of girlfriends, B. Served in the Army and sustained an injury, C. Knows a couple professional players, D. Plays pool pretty good E. Is interested in improving his game

You can ask him (Tateuts) about me if you want, and then I'll sign your autograph. Weirdo. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
04-22-2004, 07:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You can ask him (Tateuts) about me if you want, and then I'll sign your autograph. Weirdo.
<hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

t411
04-22-2004, 11:41 PM
<hr /></blockquote> Was this post mistakenly posted as a reply to my post? I did what (referring to the first sentence)?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
Sorry eg8r, it was a mistake. I was replying to Nightstalker. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

highsea
04-24-2004, 08:03 AM
Well, Nate, call me a wierdo, call me a cynic, whatever. I have a hereditary mistrust of all self-proclaimed intellectuals.

Based on what you have said here on this board, you have accomplished more in your 23 years than anyone I have ever met that is twice your age.

-CM