new thread
Is anyone worried about the potential problems of the republicans winning so many elections? The thought that less tolorence in so many ways may come from haveing a republican base. what about a fear of war, and the potential of a draft, if republicans get carried away.
Just Curious, Tom
Tom, I'm not worried at all. Besides, I happen to be one of...THEM! Strangely enough, I've found that the democrats tend to be a bit less tolerant, but that's my experience.
-J
Kilted longhair conservative republican in the Seattle area.
I myself am a livertarian first and formost and a republican second :)
Democrats are all communst that want everyone on welfare so they can distribute the money how they want. I find that people that think republicans are evil or controling are usually people that know nothing of politics.
I used to be into punk rock and the whole undergroudn scene where republican was a bad word. Then I took time to learn and see how democrats and everyone from the left conducts them selves and see them all to be communist plain and simple.
Anyway We need republicans
Dustin 1978
What is a livertarian? Is it anything like a spleenocrat? It is encouraging to know that others type like I do.
plain and simple.
It is called a typo and I clearly meant to say libertarian.
Dustin 1978
In general a fear of Politicians and their fami"liars" (ie: Supreme Court Judges, etc..) may be best in order for all long haired men. (Yes even the dreaded Mullets so many of you scorn... "today Mullets tomorrow all -hairs") I will expect to see further discrimination against any long haired men to increase in the very near furure, and no protection in site from Republicans, or any other ..cans, ists, or arians available for any sort of personal expressions. The Mighty Corporate $$ speaks louder than "hair" it would appear.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review a case from Blockbuster Entertainment Corp. involving its policy for male hair length. The case charged sex discrimination because males were required to have shorter hair length than female employees.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit determined that a 1975 case in the Fifth Circuit was still valid. Willingham v. Macon Telegraph Pub. Co., (507 F.2d 1084, 5th Cir. 1975) upheld work rules requiring different permissible lengths of hair for male and female employees. Every appeals court examining the issue since then has reached the same conclusion said the Eleventh Circuit.
The Court even cited action taken by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which has advised its field offices to administratively close all sex discrimination charges dealing with male hair length.
(Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp., U.S., No. 98-200, review denied 11/16/98)"
Say now does anyone remember what the term "Blockbuster" meant in the 50-70's? Think about that before you rent that next DVD.
I'm not sure that I agree that democrats are all communist, but it is great to see a fellow libertarian on the board. We are a scarce bunch (though growing steadily less scarce, lately).
I think the Dems are just using the money game to buy votes. I mean, if you take money from the young and give it to the old, for example, the young are going to protest, and the old are going to claim they have a right to it. The battle ensues and then each side turns to the politicians to make it right, usually by extenting to them more control over their personal liberties.
The Reps do the same thing, though more in the business arena with corporate welfare, bailing out S&Ls, and the like. Dems seem to prefer to work the welfare mom / racial / Social Security arena. I guess Dems go right after the votes, while the Reps go after influence through greater control of business. Either way, it's not an appropriate game for politicians to be playing.
Check out Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. It's a great libertarian book (a little idealistic, but wonderful political philosophy). Also, check out Reason magazine. It's strictly libertarian perspective on the current political and social scene.
The Rev
BTW, Early proponents of liberty like Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, James Madison, and Adam Smith had long hair, so this post is not off topic. :D
>>Democrats are all communst that want everyone on welfare so they can distribute the money how they want.
Wow, that's one of the most ignorant statements I've heard in quite awhile! Did your daddy teach you that one?
Before you respond, try reading your powerful declaration again a few times.
Glad to know I am not the only longhaired Republican in the great state of washington. Even harder to believe there is one in Seattle LOL. Take it easy over there.
longhairedracer
Republicans are fine. I had to sign up for the draft way back when. It didn't bother me one bit. That was the law then and I am no coward like some other people were in those days. The way I look at it is, if you don't like this country live somewhere else. Whether it's Republicans, Democrats or whatever, you still have to support the country and it's foundation.
The difference is back then we signed up when we turned 18 just in case there was a legitimate war. We were still in the middle of the cold war era.
These days we have a president whose domestic policies have failed miserably and is using an open-ended, never ending threat of war to hide his incompetence!
The very threats he makes violates international law. He is everything he claims to despise. He has turned his back on the global partnerships we have with everyone. Whether it's us being the only nation not to sign the Kyoto accord, or failing to sign the women's rights act the rest of the civilized world agreed to or the world court...this administration is incredibly unilateral.
I have a lot of relatives and friends in Europe. Anti-Americanism is at an all time high over there. Even countries that are normally friendly and allies with us have mass anti-American demonstrations.
I suspect that in two years, with an economy in shambles and the fallout of poorly thought out foreign policy and likely many dead Americans, we'll see Bush and his Repub cronies booted out.
It's going to be a miserable two years.
No because the LAST thing Republicans want is to be seen as
being INtolerant.
Because then they could be attacked for it.
In my experience, they are much more careful about what they say.
You don't remember Newt Gingrich do you? He wasn't very thoughtful at all about what came spilling out of his mouth.
I am not afraid to say that I am a southern born and raised libertarian...but a republican as a second choice. I had always been under the impression that Democrats are liberals by nature and that Republicans are conservatives by nature. Over the years I have paid attention to the world around me and have discovered that party affiliation means nothing...Every time a politician moves his/her lips they are telling a lie...no matter what party they are representing. Therefore, it really doesn't matter at all what the party is.
Our government is the biggest form of organized crime this country has ever seen. The rich lobby groups are the ones who control this country. Money speaks volumes! This country is definitely not ran by the people at all...this country is ran by the rich, the richer, and the richest.
All of that said, I would not wish to live any other place on the planet than right here in the USA. Everybody has an opinion about what's right and what's wrong, but in the end you've got to admit that this is the best country on the planet.
Concerning long hair on guys? Who is in the White House makes no difference here at all. Society as a whole has to slowly change their views and we as long hairs need to slowly change the stereotypes.
I can't pretend to speak for everyone in the UK (ater all, I'm not a politician), but the general feeling here is that Bush is more dangerous than Clinton, unless you happen to be a beddable female.
The 'war on terrorism' is no such thing, it is a war to get control of oil hidden behind an objective which cannot be realised, and thus an excuse to hit any country which does not agree with the powers that be in the US.
Once Iraq us disposed of, and the oil control passes to the US, who willbe next? Saudi Arabia? A friend at the moment, but not noted for its human rights record. Eventually, the logic is that the UK's oil reserves could be a target, which is why Tony Blair (who is supposed to be the closest thing we have to a party Democrat) is so keen to back his pals in Washington.
We've come a long way from hair, but it shows that long hairs are prepared to think and speak.
Yeah, we should have finished off the UK in 1783, or 1814, or 1918, or 1945 when we had the chance. Their funny spellings, and the extra lettres they put into wourds, not to mention driving on the wrong side of the road, are threats to world peace.
Seriously, I can't imagine us even bombing Berlin now, no matter what the politics do. I have four friends there now, and if my government were to blow them up I would be really pissed. I have even more in the rest of Germany, and LOTS MORE in London and the UK, and more Americans can say this every day.
All these languages and religions were pushed onto our ancestors to cement the power of kings and prophets. They didn't want us to talk to, or heaven forbid become friends with, people "over there". The faster we little people break down those barriers and make friends with each other, the better off we'll be against THEM.
No group is more individualistic than are longhairs. We know on which side of this issue we fall. No tool is uniting the little man more, and giving him more power, in all history, than is the Internet.
The biggest irony in it all is the Internet was developed with Defense Department money.... ;-)
Make love not war,
Well said. Do you remember John Lennon saying 'Grow your hair for peace?'
No, but it sure sounds like a plan! :-)
Oh, to be young enough not to remember John Lennon and Yoko Ono!
Let's take over Locks of Love and make them all grow their hair for love!
Yea, but there are a lot of Republicans who really hate them. It's because of what they stood for and how they lived and the music they made, who they were and the changes they brought on.
I have a Republican buddy who just hates Lennon (and the Beatles). I don't think that he really knows that much about him but the perception they have of him in his church and political circle seems to be enough to give them a very strong opinion about Lennon. I grew up in that same community but the more I learned about Lennon's life after the Beatles the more I saw what a great person he had become.
Remember the reaction he got from the "establishment" at the time? The Republican white house had the FBI keep a complete file on him, preachers demonized him, middle class parents thought he was radical, liberal and dangerous...a hippie, drugs, blah, blah, blah.
I wish he was still around, he was a great example of a person.
If there were three longhairs who were regulars on here and who lived in Baghdad, how many of you would then have the stomach to bomb it?
I suppose it would depend upon whether or not they were total dickheads.
If some longhaired religious fanatic came on here and regularly told us we westerners were the great Satan and how he dreamed of killing us, then I'm sure that not a whole lot of people would miss them. I'm sure that your example was refering to the imaginary longhairs as being nice people but I don't think that we Americans are too highly regarded in Iraq right now. Hopefully there are more than a few in Iraq who oppose Saddam because he could treat his people a whole lot better, so based on that hope I don't think that it's a good idea to bomb the people of Iraq but then I'm not so sure that is what the U.S. military is planning to do.
Does anyone here ever remember seeing a longhaired man in Iraq?
I know that there are Shites (I know I spelled that wrong) in and around India who have very long hair and some of them are very violent with other folks in India for their own religious reasons.
I think you mean Sikhs (Indians, whose religion includes long hair, which they call Kesh).
The Shiites (pronounced Shee-ites) are Moslems of a particular group, which includes the Iranian Ayatollahs (who tend to have long beards).
Look them up on Google if you are interested!
Yea, those guys, thanks!
High!
Shi'ites... are you sure that you don't confuse them with the Sikhs?
The latter are a syncretist religious movement founded in late 15th century to overcome the barriers between Hindus and Muslims, and in fact they observe a religious practice of never cutting hair and beard...
See you in Khyberspace - http://home.arcor.de/yadgar/khyberspace/index-e.html
Afghanistan Chronicle: http://home.arcor.de/yadgar/index-e.htm
Yadgar
>>...unless you happen to be a beddable female.
Just hearsay. The Republicans like to repeat it though (along with a lot of other tall tales).
If one blowjob outside of your marriage makes you a dangerous playboy then he's at the back of the bus.
I was speaking of people's perceptions in the UK. As you say, one affair doesn't make a person a serial playboy, nor in itself a bad politician. Our satirical magazine Private Eye always refers to Clinton as the Rev William Jefferson Clinton of the Church of Seven Day Fornicators. The man himeslf has given some memorable and thought provoking speeches since leaving the White House, and did a lot to encourage opposing sides to laydown their weapons and talk, both in Ireland and Israel/Palestine.
I've been trying to avoid making political posts, but since y'all keep doing it; here goes.
Party affiliation doesn't neccessarily mean anything. There are liberal republicans and conservative democrats. The Constitution was written to define (and limit) the power of the federal government. It does not give us rights; it enforces rights that we already have [endowed by our creator].
This country was attacked (the most recent one) on 9/11/2001. We have the right to defend ourselves. This is not about oil. We receive absolutely no oil from Iraq. We receive oil from many countries including a large portion from Mexico. If we were cut off from all outside sources, we currently have enough oil to sustain this nation for about 30 years.
The UN -- a good idea, but not very effective. If you (or your country) were hiding weapons (etc.), would you show them your secret hiding places? Some of you think we should have Osama (and Saddam) sign some type of treaty -- promising peace. Considering the fact that they've broken EVERY treaty they've ever signed with the UN -- is this a guarantee of anything? It didn't work in the past and it's not going to work now. Gee, maybe we should just ask Osama nicely to stop. Does anyone here seriously think that will work? Yeah, let's wait 'til he has nuclear capability; blows up a city or two -- THEN do something. Evidently 3000 plus dead Americans isn't enough to convince some of you people. Why don't you ask the families that lost loved ones on 9/11/01 what we should do.
Now, for those of you that want to blame the US for the 9/11 attack: If you read the Qaran (not the censored version), it says to destroy all people that aren't of the Muslim religion. Period. The [censored] version, which can be found on many college campuses, conveniently leaves those parts out. Whether [or not] we have done anything to piss the Al Quada (sp?) off -- does not give them the right to attack us. We DO have the right to defend ourselves. No one [sane] wants a war [or innocent people to die] except for these terrorists.
Those of you that want to run to Canada if drafted [which isn't going to happen, BTW] -- leave now; you don't deserve [or appreciate] the benefit of living in the greatest country in the world. Try and get a much needed surgery in Canada [or any decent medical care]. Just ask a Canadian (yes, I have Canadian friends). Many people in Canada die because they can't get medical treatment. This is because of the [socialist] Canadian medical system (the same thing that Hillary Clinton tried to enact here).
If liberal policies are so great, why do we still have homeless (etc)? Why are there still gun crimes [including murder], although there are over 22,000 gun laws on the books? The second Amendment guarantees a citizens' right to own [and posess] a firearm. This was enacted to provide the average citizen with a defense from a tyrannical government. Do you think that a criminal gives a damn about laws? Or that a criminal will go to a gun store [instead of the street] to get a weapon? Wake up.
I could go on and on; but why bother -- many of you will simply ignore the facts. If you do some research, you can find all of this information on the internet. I'm sure that some of you reading this will excuse this information as BS -- or won't even try and verify it. I'm not saying that one party is better than the other -- find out the facts for yourselves instead of just blindly believing what you hear on CNN [Clinton News Network] or in the media.
Take care.
Thanks for setting out your views so clearly.
My own views differ from yours to a great extent, but I understand where you are coming from. My own views are not based on watching one TV network, but on a study of the internet, publications ranging from left to right and even extreme centre (center), and my own experience of how our Givernment handled the Foot and Mouth outbreak by wasting the equivalent of $20,000,000,000 (their estimate, others put it higher) slaughtering 10 million animals unnenessarily and almost destroying our tourist and farm industries in the process.
They used out of date information, and did not realise that modern solutions were available both to detect and to slow down the disease.
The Dutch, a nation for which I have great admiration, stopped the disease in five days by vaccination. They were then forced by the EU against their will to cull in order to resume disease free status, but the facts speak for themselves.
I am worried by all politicians, especially those who think they have all the answers, but lack the ability to think for themselves.
I am worried by nutcases across the world in many countries, but also by the arms manufacturers who make them dangerous. Saddam, Bin Laden, Milosevic, where would they be or have been without weapons? Where did those weapons come from? The US and UK are far from guiltless in selling weapons to potential despots, and those of us who invest in such companiesdo their bit to fuel the fire, even if they have the laudable aim of protecting their families by sound investment.
Great post. I agree. Whatever political party is in office -- a great deal of money is involved. You have to be rich to be in a "high" political office. Clinton should have been jailed -- not for having an affair -- but for lying under oath [I don't think anyone here would have escaped jail for lying under oath -- but he did]. Let's not forget the bombing of an aspirin factory to distract from the "Lewinski affair". Of course, his actions should speak volumes about his integrity (sp?) or lack of it.
Take care.
Great posts Red Rocker. The people here in the USA are begining to see some truth as shown in the mid term elections.
They see how Democrats will do anything for power, even by breaking election laws, like they did when their candidate in New Jersey was heading for certain defeat.
They are seeing the get even attitude they have by pressing so hard to defeat Jeb Bush, the Presidents brother. They send their big boys down to Florida and still he is victorious.
They see how rapid they are to reach back for a total tax and spend liberal like Walter Mondale while they preach New Demcocrat to the faithfull.
So am I a warmonger? No. I do not want to fight Iraq. I did not want the attacks on Serbia the Clinton Administration and NATO perpetrated. I protested those by wearing a target. By the way, did I sleep through it or did anyone ever see any articles or pictures of the thousands of people that we were told were murdered and put in mass graves? Not speculation but cold facts of the discovering of the mass graves.
So I think it proves one thing here. As longhairs, our opinions differ just like everyone else's.
Keep it growing guys.
Rob
Censored Qur'an? Never heard about that - what's your source?
And can you tell in which surah/verse your statement is found?
Are you sure that it's actually from the Qur'an and not some dubious hadith ("sayings of the Prophet") fabricated centuries later by some narrow-minded fanatical Islamic law scholars?
By the way, I'm not Muslim...
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
I am only going to reply to a part of what you posted. There are millions of Americans who do not have health insurance. Sure, hospitals have to treat you even if ne has no insurance...but as the bills arrive one will think twice again before seeking treatment.
Hiliary Clinton was headed in the right direction...and even with it's faults Canada is on the right track.
I have to disagree [with parts of your post]. There was a time when I had no medical insurance. I was being treated for [manic] depression. All of my expenses were covered -- including medications. This is based on your ability to pay. If you make too little or you are unemployed -- everything is covered (at least here in CA). I was grateful. Hillary Health Care was not needed.
Obviously you haven't done your research regarding Hillary's health care plan.
"Hiliary Clinton was headed in the right direction...and even with it's faults Canada is on the right track." How do you figure this? Yes, everybody -- take a number -- we'll call you in a few months when we can schedule you for that desperately needed blood transfusion!
Socialism and communism have failed [miserably] everywhere they've been tried. In addition to that, NO nation has ever been taxed into prosperity (one [small] example being Hillary Health Care). Yes, like most liberals she has an impractical "feel good" approach to the problem. In fact, her Plan would cost Americans billions more in taxes. It would cost the individual American much less if he/she bought health insurance on their own. Where does this extra money go? To the government. Yes, I do have health insurance. Actually, it costs me more to pay the insurance and the co-pay for my medication than it would if I just bought the medication outright -- without paying for health insurance. I realize that this does not apply to everyone. However, the monthly rates are quite high to cover a spouse /family. Do we really need to be taxed more to pay for everyone's health care? I think...NOT!
Give me more of my [tax] money back!! -- I may not even need health insurance!!
Take care.
Well, here in New York State I tried to get help with my hospital bill...and was told that because I made more than $100 a week I could NOT get any assistance. The fact that I have rent and living expenses did not matter.
It is no wonder that so many people choose to make a career of Welfare as our current system encourages it.
At one time I had a health plan with an employer...it was a HMO plan. I went to the doctor and was given a prescription. I was told I could not get if filled until it was APPROVED by my HMO. Well almost two weeks later I got a notice in the mail saying that my request was denied.
Needless to say I did not fill the prescription...three years later I still suffer the same problem.
I have run into this problem. Sometimes you can work with your employer and get the medication covered. I worked with my employer (on my previous insurance) and was able to get my medication covered. This has something to do with what they call the "formulary" list. You may be able to have your employer contact the insurance company and get your medication covered. It may take a few weeks. It's worth a shot, anyway. Check with your human rescources department -- see what they can do. Often, it may just be that the medication is "too new" and therefore not yet added to the list. Also, you can check if there is a generic replacement available. Of course (!), medications for depression often don't have a generic equivalent. Good luck. Don't give up!
Take care.
...but my mail was returned as your mail box is full...so here is what I wanted to say:
Red Rocker,
I left you a couple of more posts on the longhair board regarding my experience with hospital bills and HMO plans.
Thanks for the healthy (no pun intended) debate but I think I am going to let it rest now...besides...you are one tough debater!
Am sure the guys on the longhair board rather read post more suited to the board...but I do thank you for your input and thoughts on the subject we discussed. I really do not follow politics much...but there are certain things that matter to me based on my life situations and experience.
You are lucky to have a health plan. Currently due to bad choices I am only working part-time...hopefully something full-time will come my way.
Take Care,
Karsten
Sorry -- I'm so used to using a "bogus" e-mail address, I keep forgetting to use a real e-mail address. Anyway, my current e-mail is:
shebacat02@hotmail.com
Hotmail is free. I rarely use my Hotmail account, so please let me know if you try to e-mail it -- I will check my messages. Sorry again, about the e-mail thing. I do not use my true e-mail address from my ISP, because spammers can easily get this information and spam you "to death". If you need to, you can cancel your Hotmail account and get a new one. Thanks for your responses. Feel free to e-mail anytime. Let me know if the Hotmail account doesn't work (I haven't used it in a while). Take care, friend.
Yes, I have to agree. HMO's are going away (HMO = Hand the Money Over). I had to switch to a PPO -- better coverage, but more expensive). Thanks for the compliment :)
Take care.
I am not worried at all about potential problems, because I have much more faith in these leaders ability to deal with a crisis. If you don't understand that at this time we are in much the same predicament as the Brits were about a half a century ago, this is a fight for our very survival. In my experience from being a long-haired Republican and working with old guard reps, some you might have even heard of, as a television and audio visual engineer, I haven't seen a great deal of intolerance. As to the draft, I would be surprised to see much of it, since these days warfare is totally different than a quarter century ago, more technology less manpower, and as we have seen in Afghanistan, much more special forces driven, God bless them.
As to our cousin who wrote in from across the pond, your Tony Blair, who was quite the bud with our former non-republican prez, certainly does not consider the threat in Iraq to be a ploy or a paper tiger, but he is certainly a great ally at this time of the gathering storm. As with any unfortunate event, yes this action would bring benefits to our society and yours as well, the idea is not to fear this but embrace and understand it and in the end make money off of it, I am far from rich in wealth, but I will do as much as possible to enhance my family's wealth by investing in things that should increase because of a military action or even not. It doesn't matter whether you lean left or right to money, you can make as much as you want and a broker doesn't even ask what party you belong to.
I agree with the president I hope that war is not required, but the ball is in Hussein's court.
"Only Time Will Tell"--J. Buffett
more recommended reading: Parliament of Whores by P.J. O'Rourke.
I worry most of all about the environment: more genetically-engineered agriculture spreading to contaminate native crops; less environmental regulation of waterways and the air; less public input in placing power plants; less judicial support for ascribing the responsibility for environmental injuries to polluting companies, etc.
Charlie
It is predicted that since the Republicans now have a majority they will take the opportunity to revisit the failed attempt at opening the protected lands to oil drilling. But no one has mentioned that once the door is open to one private venture then others can get in. They are also expected to let the logging companies into the protected lands too but there may be a bit of common sense there...if it is watched and regulated properly! Much of the environmental legislation is thought to be in danger of massive changes as the Republicans have made attempts already but didn't have a majority. Now they do. Do you care? I guess we'll see what happens and you can tell me later if there was something to worry about or not.
I think the Democrats have less tolerance across the board. If you don't hold their liberal views, then YOU must have a problem. Of course, I'm talking about the extreme left wing demos.
I am very conservation, except for my long hair. I feel I am fairly tolerant of most people, except people that treat others with disrespect. Oh yeah, I'm not very tolerant of people who do stupid things either, especially if the "stupid things" affect others in a negative way.
I really hate it when people think republicans/conservatives are not tolerant. A very ignorant view......
Okay, I am pretty worried. Now that the Republicans have taken over the government, I plan on leaving the country before I turn 18 so I don't get drafted.
-Danny
Danny,
I'm not sure whether you're serious about this or just trolling for flames. I'm going to take you at your word however and make comment on that. As you declare yourself to be under eighteen that means you're young and may not know much history. So, I'll put this in pretty clear and direct terms.
If the results of this most recent election have convinced you that it is no longer worth your while to stay in this country - then I will GLADLY help you pack to leave. In fact, I'd even come down to the pier to wave you goodbye as you sail off and leave this nation to those of us who give a damn about it and are willing to work to make it better.
If you do crawl away, then, please, don't _ever_ try and come back.
What happened on Tuesday was democracy in action. Millions of Americans came out to vote. They cast their ballots and exercised their franchise as citizens. They showed their concern and their dedication to this country and to its ideals by casting those ballots.
Those of us who were disappointed by the results of this election now have a clearer set of goals in what we must do to change things. This is the way a democracy works. This is what it takes to get things done. If that is too much for you, fine, that is your personal decision.
Danny, don't get me wrong. I FULLY support your right to leave if you think there's nothing to be gained by your staying here. If that is your attitude and your feelings than I think the rest of us will be better of with your not being here.
We need do-ers to make things different. We need those willing to committ themselves to the nation and to its ideals in order to make sure the country lives up to those ideals. If the results from one mid-term election are enough to convince you to flee and quit this country in digust, then I hope you enjoy your trip out of here. The rest of us will get on with the business of making a difference and making things better.
I hope you find a place outside of this country where you think things are better. I'm a forty year old guy who has done a pretty good job of looking around at the rest of the world and I sincerely doubt there is _any_ place else where you would enjoy even half the freedoms we take for granted here. But hey, you're a young guy and I'm sure you're certain that things aren't the way they are. So, go to it! Enjoy the trip and best of luck finding some other country to call your own. Just don't let the door hit you on the butt as you leave.
Madoc
Well said, Madoc. The idea of leaving the country because Republicans have gained a little power is ridiculous. Why not give them a chance? After all, the democrats have been in [the majority of] power for the last 30 years or so.
Why don't you try and do a little research and find out the facts. Stop listening to the [liberal] biased media and THINK FOR YOURSELF!! Liberals [and most democrats] like to propose "feel good" solutions instead of actually examining the problem and applying logic. Don't believe me? Take a look at the last 8 years and the Clinton presidency. Has education improved? NO. We are currently experiencing an economy that was a direct result of the Clinton years. In case you don't know, the economy takes a few years to respond from things such as tax increases/decreases [among other things]. Clinton [and his cronies] passed the largest tax increase this nation has seen in many years. Here's an economic statement of fact: NO nation has EVER been taxed into prosperity. Don't believe me? Do some research.
For example; they all seem to think that a tax cut is a bad thing. Why don't you explain to me, why, when taxes are cut; that economies grow and the government actually recieves MORE money [in taxes] from the "people"? If you don't know the answer to this -- take a course on economics; or better yet -- take a course on American History. Here's a hint: Less taxes = more money for people to spend. Employers are able to hire more people and produce more [for less investment]. This in turn, lowers prices [for say, a "widget"]. More people can afford this "widget" -- and the business grows more, produces more, makes a bigger profit (less taxes] and provides more jobs. This benefits everyone.
Anyway, that's just one example. I'm not an expert on this topic; so I suggest you do some research. You may be surprised at what you find.
Take care.
I've been following this discussion and I have to jump in here. First of all, I don't understand how anybody can possibly call the media liberal biased any more. So many people claim that, but I just don't see it. The media flamed Clinton for everything he did, but Bush gets a free pass on everything. Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, the entire Fox news channel- not exactly liberal biased. I do totally agree with the think for yourself part.
When are Republicans going to take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming Clinton for everything? Seriously. The economy is responding right now to Bush's 2000 tax cut, and it hasn't done jack. Sure, the rich are enjoying their extra $100,000, but the extra $300 or so the middle class got didn't do much, especially in the face of the huge rise in unemployment.
I agree. Though we pay less taxes than any major economic country out there, and some of them have a better quality of life (based on indexes, not my personal opinion- I like it here). So I guess it comes down to how you define prosperity- by how well the upper 1% is living, or by how well the average longhair brother hanging out at Home Depot is. :-)
Theoretically, that's what supposed to happen. What happens in the real world is this- people pay a little less tax, corporations get HUGE tax breaks. People think they are getting ahead, so they spend a little extra. Inflation goes up. Corporations make extra profit, but never pass along the difference to their customers, they just give their CEO's huge raises. Then, they decide to cut costs by laying off middle management, and moving the lower paying jobs overseas. Trickle down economics never trickles down. You can do some research on that if you'd like.
I have a question for you now. How do you explain the deficit? Clinton spent many years getting out from under Reagan's huge deficit, to the point where we nearly had a balanced budget. Then, Bush comes in and rings up an 8 trillion dollar deficit within two years. The American people are eventually going to pay for that with tax dollars, so I can't see how cutting taxes while ringing up historic deficits makes any sense.
I'm tired -- so I'll try and be brief here.
"First of all, I don't understand how anybody can possibly call the media liberal biased any more. So many people claim that, but I just don't see it."
-Don't you read the newspapers? Or watch TV? Have you been to CNN lately?
"The media flamed Clinton for everything he did, but Bush gets a free pass on everything."
-Such as? Name ONE thing the media gave Bush a "free pass" on. Clinton's the one that looked like an ass trying to define the word "is" and lying under oath (a prisonable offense, BTW). He showed his true colors to the camera, many times!!
"Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, the entire Fox news channel- not exactly liberal biased."
-Wow. A FEW conservatives. YES -- Fox News is very balanced -- the only network that provides both viewpoints. If you don't have cable, then likely -- you don't get that station -- you get CBS, NBC and ABC (maybe not all of them).
"The economy is responding right now to Bush's 2000 tax cut, and it hasn't done jack."
-Have you taken a course in economics? If so, did you pass? It's a FACT that the economy takes years to respond to tax cuts/increases. This is due to many factors -- other than just taxes.
"Sure, the rich are enjoying their extra $100,000, but the extra $300 or so the middle class got didn't do much..."
-Where [and when] is this $100 grand [for the rich] tax cut you're talking about? Perhaps you don't understand the concept of percentages. If you reduce taxes [across the board] by 5% (Bush's proposal) -- that means that EVERYONE saves an additional 5% of what they have PAID [the previous year]in taxes. If you pay $2 million in taxes [during the year]-- yes -- getting 5% back would be a cut of $100,000. If you pay $2,000 [during the year] you will get back 5% or $100. Are people supposed to get back more than they paid in? Does that make sense? The more you make -- the more you pay in -- therefore the more you save in a tax cut. If you didn't pay any tax during the year -- you get %5 percent back [of nothing] -- which is nothing [.05 X zero]. Pay no tax -- you DON'T get a refund of what you haven't paid in. In fact, Bush's tax cut is much smaller than Clinton's tax increase of 1993. Geez, how hard is it to understand simple math?
"...especially in the face of the huge rise in unemployment."
-Huge rise? It varies up and down on a monthly basis. Employment is projected to go up by 15% from 2000 to 2010. Go to the government's website.
"Then, Bush comes in and rings up an 8 trillion dollar deficit within two years."
-Where did you come up with 8 Trillion? The largest figure I have seen is 393 billion. The solution to this is NOT to tax more. It's to cut government spending on worthless programs. Also, during "war time" it's common for deficit spending to go up. It's also common for deficit spending to go down during "peacetime."
I'm simply too tired to type anymore. I have to get up and go to work to pay my almost 30% [total] tax burden -- yeah, that's everything except sales tax [CA]-- that I can think of right now, anyway.
Take care.
They are giving him a pass for any responsibility for the current economy. They gave Bush and Cheney passes for their ties Enron and Haliburton. If that were Clinton, he would have been crucified for what they did. Bush got another pass on his pre 9/11 knowledge. I would think that would be more reason for an "independent" investigation that a guy getting a beej. Granted, Clinton F'ed up. I'm not denying that part.
I get cable. If you think Fox News is very balanced, I don't think there's much of a point to having this conversation. They are almost universally acknowledged as a conservative network, and their entire roster of political commentators are all extremely Republican slanted. Name one liberal commentator on the Fox News channel. If you can't, please explain how they are very balanced.
Wow, usually people only talk down to me like this because they assume I'm a stupid longhair. It's kind of a nice change being talked down to because I'm a stupid Democrat. :) I have taken many courses in economics, and done quite well, thank you very much. Just because I don't agree with you, does not mean I am stupid or uneducated. Bush has been President for two years, which is a long enough time for him to start answering for the failings of his economic policies. If it is a FACT that it takes many more years, please give me a source that proves that you are right and I am wrong along with a date after which you will agree that Bush actually has to answer for things.
No need to explain math to me, I get it. The point I was making is that the rich benefit much more from flat tax cuts than the middle class and poor. Why do you think that our tax system is regressive and not just a flat tax to start with? Well, that is the same principle by which I think a flat tax cut is unfair.
Agreed. Which is why Bush keeps finding ways to keep us in "war time."
Can't find Osama? That's ok, let's just start up with Iraq again and try to convince people that there's a link, when there isn't.
Later.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Many of the things you have stated are not FACT. But hey, to each his own. Take care.
Fair enough. No hard feelings.
You take care too.
They are giving him a pass for any responsibility for the current economy. They gave Bush and Cheney passes for their ties Enron and Haliburton. If that were Clinton, he would have been crucified for what they did. Bush got another pass on his pre 9/11 knowledge. I would think that would be more reason for an "independent" investigation that a guy getting a beej. Granted, Clinton F'ed up. I'm not denying that part.
I get cable. If you think Fox News is very balanced, I don't think there's much of a point to having this conversation. They are almost universally acknowledged as a conservative network, and their entire roster of political commentators are all extremely Republican slanted. Name one liberal commentator on the Fox News channel. If you can't, please explain how they are very balanced.
Wow, usually people only talk down to me like this because they assume I'm a stupid longhair. It's kind of a nice change being talked down to because I'm a stupid Democrat. :) I have taken many courses in economics, and done quite well, thank you very much. Just because I don't agree with you, does not mean I am stupid or uneducated. Bush has been President for two years, which is a long enough time for him to start answering for the failings of his economic policies. If it is a FACT that it takes many more years, please give me a source that proves that you are right and I am wrong along with a date after which you will agree that Bush actually has to answer for things.
No need to explain math to me, I get it. The point I was making is that the rich benefit much more from flat tax cuts than the middle class and poor. Why do you think that our tax system is regressive and not just a flat tax to start with? Well, that is the same principle by which I think a flat tax cut is unfair.
Agreed. Which is why Bush keeps finding ways to keep us in "war time."
Can't find Osama? That's ok, let's just start up with Iraq again and try to convince people that there's a link, when there isn't.
Later.
I find this thread interesting because I could not figure out why anybody would vote Republican. I find your reasons interesting, but flawed.
You claim to know basic economics, but pure capitalism is unstable. Lacking regulation, the very rich will get richer and richer, and the poor will get poorer and poorer. In western society today, equalization comes about via taxes and regulations, like them or not. I believe that the USA is heading in the wrong economic direction today. I do not believe it is just a coincidence that the economy of the USA falls when Republicans have more power. I also believe that Ronald Reagan was the worst thing to ever happen to America. I'm sure you won't agree. Oh well.
Let me point out that I'm not some teenager who doesn't have any experiences, or live on welfare. My wife and I earn $120,000 a year and we pay tons of taxes (New Mexico has some of the highest income taxes). Actually, when I was a teenager, I was more right-leaning than I am today. As I have gotten older, and learn more about the world, I have learned that life is not just about amassing wealth, it is really about doing your part to benefit society and making life better for our children and grandchildren. I find the Republicans to be the antithesis of that. They seem to want a society that wastes energy at an outrageous rate, teaches the world that it is OK to be a bully to get what you want (oil), and doesn't even give a damn about today's children, let alone the children of the future. They are the worst at funding education. Think what you want about welfare, but you cannot banish the children of the poor to a life of perpetual poverty simply because their parents aren't as smart/don't work as hard as you. That is (should be) against the American ideal.
I believe that most who support Republicans have had limited life experiences and few real challenges in life. They typically have grown up in upper-middle class homes, had everything on a silver platter, and turn a blind eye to the challenges facing us now and in the future. However, the one issue I do agree with the Republicans on is the abortion issue. But I won't go there.
Interestingly, the prime example of one who has had a charmed life is George W. Bush himself. Never known a day to not have tons of money, bummed through college, been an alcoholic (now reformed), started businesses that his Daddy bailed him out of, and now gets his way because the Rupublicans have complete control of the House. I'm sorry, but he is not one that I want as a leader.
I know they won the election, but I don't understand it. I hardly ever run into anybody that supports him. I don't know where the people come from who vote for him. And I don't live in California.
OK guys, I'm sorry to have come off as a coward, but as long as people are STUPID enough to be
pro-war, pro-death penalty, AND probably pro-life,
then I refuse to support THEIR representatives that impose such insane ideas upon us all.
I take back my statement about draft-dodging, but isnt it a little like Vietnam, going into a war I do not in the least support?
-Respectfully,
Danny
...Pro war....NO. Pro defending one's nation against attack [and FUTURE attacks] -- Hell YES.
Pro Death Penalty....YES. Taking an ADULT'S life who has violently taken another's life [or more lives]...Hell YES.
Pro Life....YES. Not killing an innocent -fetus/baby-....Hell YES.
Let's see if I get YOUR stand on the last two issues correct (I already understand your position on "war"). Let's keep the [guilty] murderers alive; but it's OK to kill an [innocent] fetus or baby. Uhhh...yeah...that makes sense. Do I have that right? Upon reading your post it would appear so. Sounds kinda' backwards to me.
Do you (or did you) know [personally] any woman that has had an abortion? YES...I have -- a previous girlfriend. It messed her head up. I don't think she ever got over the guilt [of murder] -- it was a very bad experience.
Do you (or did you) know [personally] anyone that murdered one of your friends/family [or someone you know]? YES...I have. One of my best friends was murdered by her boyfriend -- who then killed himself. I knew them both. She had a four-year-old son who was [thankfully] not in the room at the time. She lived for 10 minutes with three bullet holes in her head.
Now, why don't YOU explain to me WHY I'm wrong and you're right -- especially -IF- you have no personal experience with the two situations I just mentioned.
Danny,
Debating such subjects as these isn't helped when you immediately declare the folks who disagree with you to be "stupid enough" to hold their views.
As it so happens, I am pro-war. Not that I have any great desire to see this country adopt any policy which will result in Americans coming home in bodybags as a result of it. However, the threat we face is a real one and it is an implacable one. I wish we could negotiate this one away but we can't. And even doing nothing now might still result in those bodybags coming home.
Iraq might not be the worst of the lot - but it is one of the worst. They have supported terrorist groups in the past, they support them now. They have attacked other countries in that region, and they threaten to do so again. And then there's the little situation of their having Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Right now they are only capable of firing nerve gas filled rockets at unarmed civilian villagers. If left to their own devices, the Iraqi's would soon have nuclear tipped missiles that they could fire off anywhere the rockets could reach. The death toll there could run in the millions. Particularly if they fired them at Israel which has nukes of its own and would, in turn, incinerate Iraq.
So, the prospect of letting the Iraqi's go along their merry way unchecked might not result in Americans coming home in bodybags today - but it would result in more of them coming home dead later when we have to go in and put a stop to it then. I'd rather we do something NOW than later when it would be worse.
On your other points, well, I am ADAMANTLY OPPOSSED to the death penalty. Period. That is an absolute punishment. As such it demands absolute perfection in its administration. Since it is administered by human beings who - even with the best of intentions - will make mistakes, that means that it can never be perfectly administered. That means it can never be truly just and it should not, therefore, ever be used.
As far as abortion goes, I wish it were simple enough to say that abortion is an issue which I can not have any standing on as I am a male and will therefore never have one. I always get a chuckle over how many guys get so wrapped up and outraged over this subject yet it is the women who are the ones who it is really about. Would that it were that simple.
For me though, it comes down to personal freedoms. The most basic of which is the freedom to control your own body. Since it is women who bear children with their own bodies then that means that they should have control over their own bodies. That means that they should have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies. That means that they should have the right to be pregnant or remain pregnant.
Yes, it is a complex issue. Yes, there are mitigating factors. Yes, I've known people who have had abortions. No, it was not some lighthearted thing. No, it didn't ruin their lives. At the time they had their abortion having the child probably would have ruined their lives. It should be up to the woman whether or not she wishes to bear that child. She should have the freedom to choose what happens to her own body. If that means also having the freedom to abort an unwanted pregnancy, then so be it.
All of this, Danny, was not put into place by force in this country. All of these things were decided by the people of this country. They elected their representatives who enacted these laws and regulations which made all this possible. They used the democratic process to make changes and they used the democratic process to fix things they got wrong. They participated, they got involved, they voted.
And they didn't cash it all in simply because they lost once at the polls. They didn't run away. They didn't quit.
You don't like where the country is headed? Fine. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. You're too young to vote? Fine. You can still get involved and do your part. Have you looked up your local political party offices? Have you tried to volunteer with the local government? Have you done anything but complain as to how bad it is? If not, then you've no right to make those complaints in the first place. There's much you can do even if you're too young to vote.
Get involved. Learn. Participate. Don't run away. Don't quit. Live up to your responsibilities as a citizen. Work for the changes you want. The rest of us are. It's how things get done.
Madoc
What about Ted Nugent? He's a lifelong long-hair, and is a pretty outspoken right-wing Republican like myself.
Headbangerguy