Punisher
|
geez Pho
Is there anything you can't explain :blink:
one smart bird...
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
Awkwardly enough I agree with much of what Phoenix said, with certain exceptions
The WMD issue comes back again and again. Yes Clinton thought he had them but the UN was far less sure on that, there were many attempts at dropping sanctions on Iraq in the 90s, as far as I know all of them were Vetoed either by the US or the UK. I'm someone who believes in the morality of ultimate ends in politics, that the intentions in which you go into a situation will determine the outcome. That being said, If Bush came out in 2002 and said "We want to go to war in Iraq to rescue the Iraqi people" right off the bat, he would have gotten my vote of confidence and its far more likely that he would have gotten the support of a great deal more people in the world for his campaign. He did not, all this slime about WMD, contracts, spoils of war and the corruption of the Iraqi governing council have more or less attested to that. This was not a war for the Iraqi people but rather a war FOR Iraq, the landmass,, the strategic location and the goodies under the soil. That being said, leaving now would only damage the reputation of the US further, not only in credibility, but more in percieved military capability.
The tax cut on the other hand was not a good idea. I have a far right economics professor who told me this "I hate to admit it but Clinton revitalized the economy by raising taxes during the early 90s, the republican's blind approach to cutting taxes irregardless of economic considerations is what is causing the problem". The idea is that lowering taxes does increase spending but it cannot increase spending at the expense of a depreciating currency. Since the US is an import economy, it relies heavily on its strong dollar to purchase goods from abroad. By cutting taxes you do put more money into the pockets of people but by depreciating the dollar at the same time, the real worth of the money goes down, thus in reality the amount cannot make up for the worth of the currency.
Bushes relection chances depend at this point on the centrist vote, or the swing vote. The undecided centrist make up a large portion of the public, granted most of them do not vote. The swing vote comes down to if he can convince people who would normally vote democrat, to vote republican, which in this polarized political climate will not happen.
In the end they are both politicians, so yes, Kerry might not be any better than Bush, but what American needs currently is at least a symbolic break from what internationally has been seen as a dismal and deteriorating administration.
Keeper, the Iraq-Iran war started over a territorial dispute between the two countries. The CIA and NSA funded the Iraqi government (Sadam Hussein) against the Iranians (Ayatolia Homeni) officially to stop the spread of fundamentalism in the middle east but unofficially most likely due to the 1976 Embassy hostage takings in Iran, which ended in the public embarassment of the then President Jimmy Carter and the American intelligence community as a whole.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
I thought those guys were only used in Panama, or am I mistaken?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
Thank you Woodsman, learn something new everyday, or would it be considered learning something old [/end rambling] Oh, well Strategic Studies isn't really my bag, I'm more of a International Relations, Political Economy person, but thank you for the knowledge
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Bald&Sexy
Banned
Light Guard
Posts: 15
|
*post removed*
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-03-10, 04:05 by ConfusedUs »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
id like to state that not all conservatives use a z where an s should be.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
OoBeY
|
I'd like to quickly point out I'm not a heartless bastard, and just now realized I pasted an older version of my original post, where I left out the part about compromising with civil unions. (Namely, I think they're an ideal solution given the fact that they allow gays to affirm their love for each other, and share in the benefits of marriage, while leaving the institution of marriage "intact" for conservatives. It's called compromise, people, and it's what makes democracy function.) No one seemed to have an issue with the post, which frankly they should have, given the slightly callous nature of it, so I never noticed. My apologies.
I'd also like to further distance myself from B&S in as many ways as possible, so if anyone spots any grammatical or spelling errors in my posts please let me know post haste, ok?
|
|
« Last Edit: 2004-03-10, 03:44 by OoBeY »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
Marriage is a religious institution Civil Union is a governmental institution
The fact that the government is talking about marrying anyone, irregardless of what occupies their pants scares me. Whether or not you want to be married is something between you and your priest, rabbi, witchdoctor, or whatever. Whether or not you want to be entered into a civil union is between you and your judge or mayor.
There is absolutely no overlap, there is no room for moral opinion, the simple fact of the matter is that the government should not be doing marriages in the first place. Its a law that quite frankly predates back to medival times, as a means of controling breeding, that should have been abolished long ago and left in the hands of clerics.
I agree with Phoenix that someone should slap the cuffs on the judge in San Francisco, but someone should also slap cuffs on the Asscroft (no that's not a typo) for ordering a law that violated the separation between church and state.
Follow the rule of law and get the government out of church buisness
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ConfusedUs
|
I'm wondering how my thread got hijacked from the election to marriage and religion in the government.
STAY ON TOPIC
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
You have a constitutional ammendment that is attempted to be passed on this specific issue prior to an election (granted thankfully it will fail like most attempts at ammendments, even those that are not as ridicilously stupid as this one)
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
While I would love to debate the origins of marriage among primitive cultures, Con is right. We're straying off topic yet again. Personally I really don't have a problem with the president proposing an amendment to the constitution. That's the way you do things in America, and it will take the consent of the governed to pass that kind of thing anyway. This shouldn't affect his re-election chances beyond a few swing voters anyway. I think people are more worried about keeping their jobs at the moment than anything else. Of course, if the War on Terror makes a very positive upturn, say Bush manages to catch Osama a few weeks prior to election, then watch his approval ratings go through the roof. I'm sure all the conspiracy theorists will say "SEE? I told you they had him all this time!" but it'll be fun to watch the mad scramble that results.
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
Devlar
|
I'm not talking about the development of marriage itself, more how marriage developped in western legal society You have no problem with it even if the ammendment that is technically illegal, but you do have a problem with a judge that is doing the exact same thing?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Apocrypha
Ogre
Posts: 46
|
Of course, if the War on Terror makes a very positive upturn, say Bush manages to catch Osama a few weeks prior to election, then watch his approval ratings go through the roof. I'm sure all the conspiracy theorists will say "SEE? I told you they had him all this time!" but it'll be fun to watch the mad scramble that results. You'd have to be a retard to think nothing of it if they conveniently caught a few terrorists right before the election. I wouldn't say caught anyway, nor would I say that they've "had him all this time", there's no need to catch, he's only doing what he was told. If Bin Laden even exists at all, surely he can't be just some random guy in a turban who they pay to make video tapes *rolls her eyes* because puppet governments are just a figment of my imagination. It's all just another form of propaganda, instilling false fear at whatever cost, so one can play the hero in times of "need."
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
theres an passionet conspiracy theorist.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|