|Now, I'm not a Democrat, but I found this site which goes into Bush's National Guard serving.[/QUOTE]|
The problem i have with this site is the fact that it's democrats.com. *The title is "Bush's Top 10 Lies, Exaggerations And 'Obsfucations' About His Military Service." * This shows it's a very one sided story. *The site's goal is to defeat Bush so they take statements out of context and tweak things to make everything sound as bad as possible.
|One more thing, I came across this...|
UAW is a powerful union with a liberal agenda. *They want democrats in office so they put stories like this on their site to influence people. *Again it is not an unbiased story.
| Clinton lied about sex. Big whoop.[/QUOTE]|
The problem is clinton's lie was perjury before a grand jury. *If he had admitted to the jury that he had sexual relations with Monica then he would not have been impeached. *He simply would have been unfaithful to his wife. *Having an affair is still morally wrong but is not illegal and would not have caused clinton to be impeached.
|He led a great economy.[/QUOTE]|
Presidents have no control over the economy. *The economy is a business cycle. *It goes from recovery (Clinton Pres.) to a peak (Clinton also pres.) to a recession (end of Clinton Pres., beginning of Bush Pres.) to a trough (low point of recession, Bush pres.). *We are now back into the recovery part of the cycle. *Soon we will be back to the strong economy present during clinton's presidency.
|He believed in God. He went to church. He stayed married to one woman and raised a beautiful child.[/QUOTE]|
If you're trying to make him sound moral then you're wrong. *He was not a moral man. *Believing in God and going to church does not mean anything if you live like he did. He lied to everyone in this country. *He chased women. *He had affairs with some of them. *Also, He and his wife were involved in scams, like white water, to make some money at other's expense. *I will never ever respect this man. *
| I used to just disagree with Repubs. Now I find them disgusting.[/QUOTE]|
That’s funny i feel the same way about democrats. *They'll say something one time and then say the complete opposite another time. *They say whatever makes people happy at the time, even if they have to flat out lie.
Here's some questions for you. Do Republicans ever lie? Do they ever spin the facts to make their candidate or position look better than they are? Do they make websites and press statements that take Democrat's history and positions out of context to serve election ends? Did Reagan and Bush #1 lie about Iran Contra? Do you feel Bush's Vietnam era military service record is crystal clean and is the same as some poor working stiff who was drafted into the infrantry? Do you feel it was anyone's place to ask Clinton about his sex life and do you feel those like Linda Tripp on were only concerned for the national character and were utterly devoid of private and political agendas? Do you feel such a lie warrants impeachment? Do you think Bush always tells the truth? If Presidents have no influence over economic matters why did Bush run on being a business man? If the Clinton made money on shady deals what about Bush being "bought" out of failed oil businesses and being made a millionaire through the Texas Rangers? All those "deals" were kosher -- not just "legal" -- but ETHICALLY kosher? Remember you are attacking Demos and Clinton on ethics and he who throws the first stone must be PURE himself. Are your guys PURE?
|Do Republicans ever lie? Do they ever spin the facts to make their candidate or position look better than they are? Do they make websites and press statements that take Democrat's history and positions out of context to serve election ends?[/QUOTE]|
Yes some do lie. I never said they didn't. Yes most politicians do spin facts to their advantage. This is all part of the political game. And yes there are pro-republican websites. *I never said there aren't republican websites that tear apart democrats because there are some. *And the stories are one-sided just like the democrats.com stories. *I merely said that in a discussion, one-sided stories should not be used as the ultimate truth. *Which is why i never used facts from rushlimbaugh.com in my responses.
|Do you feel it was anyone's place to ask Clinton about his sex life and do you feel those like Linda Tripp on were only concerned for the national character and were utterly devoid of private and political agendas?[/QUOTE]|
When the President of the US, who represents us Americans to the rest of the world, is having an affair i think it is our business. *When someone become president they no long have a personal life. *Their entire lifelong history is open to the public. *This ranges from affairs to smoking marijuana in college, all of this information becomes public knowledge when a man become president.
|Do you feel such a lie warrants impeachment?[/QUOTE]|
Do you even have to ask me? *Of course lying under oath to a grand jury and obstruction of justice warrants impeachment. *Nixon lied about a scandal and he would have been impeached. *Fortunately he had the guts to resign. Clinton, on the other hand, decided to continue to be a national embarrassment and refused to resign. *So you see there is a difference in the character of *republicans and democrats. *Republicans, for the most part, do what is best for the country. *Democrats do what is best for themselves. *This was made more evident after Al Gore's crying refusal to concede the 2000 election.
|If Presidents have no influence over economic matters why did Bush run on being a business man?[/QUOTE]|
Presidents have no control over the economy. *The economy is a business cycle. *Presidents can try to get tax cuts or they can try to increase gov't spending in order to jump start the economy. *However, they have absolutely no control over when the economy is booming or when it's in recession.
|Are your guys PURE?[/QUOTE]|
I never said my guys are "pure." *No one human being is perfect. * I just think republicans try harder to be than demos do.
I stopped at about the hundreth post. Lest face it. The economy has gone to $#!(.
Mat_man44, the economy didn't go to #$#@, the truth it, I'm amazed at our economy, after 9/11 we noticed many changes, and then our economy went down, but we are recovering slowly, and we are notcing more things about ourselves as a country that we didn't realize before. So, I think our economy is actually getting better in some ways, even though some of this politicians things just doesn't make any sense
If you are offended by frank analysis of politics and uncomfortable with the practical underpinnings of religion…don’t read this post.
Dear fellow CP lovers:
At the risk of offending everyone, I felt compelled to post the following in response to the discussion of the recall election underway in California. *The conversation seems to have drifted substantially from the recall to the state of American politics in general. *I think that if you read carefully and think critically, you will find that there is more commonality than difference. *So, with that in mind I will tread in with my two cents. *I would like to address some of the most salient points mentioned in the preceding posts. *During which I will attempt to avoid castigating any one political party or individual or religious viewpoint. *So here it goes:
1. The Preservation of Our Republic is Dependent of the Separation of Church and State
Throughout history, religion and politics have often been wedded together, with spectacularly disastrous results. *Barring the Pharonic models employed in the mono-cultural environments of ancient Egypt and Imperial China, most theocracies have led to religious persecution, war/crusades, and the subjugation of human rights in the name of temporal religious authority. *Europe was racked for centuries by religious war and persecution. * For centuries prior to the Reformation, Europe was held in the iron grip of a Catholic Church more concerned with material wealth and temporal authority than true salvation. *The Spanish Inquisition was centuries old institution intent of rooting out heresy, demons, and Jews. *
The founding fathers need only have observed recent British history to determine the need to keep spiritual authorities out of government. *Henry VIII decision to break with the Catholic Church and assume the mantle of spiritual leader led to a vicious cycle of violence that continues even today (see N. Ireland). *The bloody mary cocktail (a Sunday brunch favorite of mine) takes its name from Henry’s eldest daughter, Mary I, who attempted to squash religious tolerance through the immolation of over 300 people. *The situation improved dramatically with ascension of Elizabeth I, who nominally divested herself of religious authority. *Instead, she transformed herself into the personification of the State, creating a mystique of a virgin queen (sound familiar).
The Puritans did not land on Plymouth Rock out of some drive for religious freedom. *No, they were driven from Britain when Oliver Cromwell’s ultra-conservative religious Commonwealth failed. *All of this and more weighed heavily on the minds of the Founding Fathers when they drafted the Constitution. *They were intimately familiar with oppression by not only kings and parliaments, but of Popes and Archbishops. *They were well aware that government should create a neutral environment for religion (and in their world-view, Christian religion) so society would not devolve into religious violence. *The government heretofore has worked hard not to advocate the superiority of one religion over the other.
Today however, we have government officials advocating the establishment of an official endorsement for the Ten Commandments, the codification of marriage based on religious principle, and the restriction of intimate relationships based on ancient tribal customs. *The Federal Government should take no position on these matters; we have a rule of law that is based not on spiritual principles, but on individual freedom. *It is the responsibility of the government then to reconcile the individual’s needs and the survival of the entire society.
A monument to the Ten Commandments doesn’t have to appear in a federal courthouse for people to respect and obey them. *Most of the Commandments are already laws and principles espoused by all major world religions…but the display does constitute an official endorsement of Judeo-Christian philosophy. *Furthermore, what is the logical conclusion of this policy? *Does a Jewish Justice get to display a monument to the Torah, would a Muslim Justice get a monument to the Quran? *Hopefully, it is clear that the federal establishment of religion would create an untenable situation of intimidation and social injustice. *
If, for arguments sake, we stuck with Christianity as the official state religion, whose brand would it be? *Which, of the myriad denominations, should the state endorse? *I fancy myself somewhat of a connoisseur of Protestantism and I can tell you that they are all very different in feel and form.
A look around the world today shows you that no major political/economic power is a theocracy or religious oligarchy. *Most democracies officially espouse secular humanism that respects all religions and none. The Middle-East is a mess, rife with corrupt men who oppress and subjugate their populations in the name of God. *The House of Saud, for example, is charged with the protection of Mecca and Medina and the continuance of the Hajj; not with becoming rich off Western oil addictions, but I digress.
But this whole movement plays into a larger American socio-political context which will be discussed later.
2. American Politics is as Pure as Mud
I was struck by a comment by a participant that one party attempts to be more pure than the other. *It strikes me as a bit inane, but I’ll address it anyway. *American society, despite the best intentions, has undergone significant stratification…resulting in the emergence of a powerful political class. *This political class is not truly interested in governing for the establishment of the common good, but for its own sake (read power hungry). *A great thinker once said “Power doesn’t corrupt, it attracts the corruptible”. *This phenomenon transcends party lines an affiliation, it is merely the current paradigm that we live in and accept. *Note that it is commonly assumed that politicians lie, that they will say anything to be elected. *The ruling class, as have all members of that niche throughout history, will work consistently to consolidate their own power; often to the detriment of their subjects.
It is demonstrable that power structures tend to attract people who want power for the sake of power and that a significant proportion of such people are imbalanced-in a word, insane.- Frank Herbert
What then is the solution? *Simply fund all elections publicly. *The current system encouraged the wealthier among us to enter into government and adjust the system for their own good, and not the good of all. *Large corporations and individual donors can purchase access to policy and politicians that most citizens can not. *The viewpoint that those who make the most are somehow more worthy than others for special treatment is silly and naïve (notice how I didn’t say pay the most, if you combine state tax, payroll tax, and sales tax…middle class and lower income earners pay the most in a regressive tax environment that favors the rich…even before the Bush tax cut). *The common good of the nation is more important than a factory, energy company, or oil executive. *Corporations and financial interests are not entitled to representation, especially at the expense of the citizenry.
Republicans, Democrats, and Independents have all been compromised by this type of bribery. *The degree to which you think this is so is dependent upon your party affiliation.
But here is some food for thought (count the zeros while you are at it):
*1998 George H. Bush wrote to the Oil Minister of Kuwait (on Presidential Stationary) on behalf of Chevron Oil. *Later, Chevron donates $657,000 to the Republican Party
*The same as above earned $13,000,000 from his Global Crossing stock when it went public. *Global Crossing also kicked in $1,000,000 into his son’s campaign for president.
*The same president as above changed an 1872 Mining Law to allow Barrick Gold Strike to purchase $1,000,000,000 in gold ore rights from the U.S. government for $10,000. *George H Bush is the Honorary Senior Advisor to the company’s International Advisory Board.
*The current George Bush needs $200,000,000 to win (buy?) another election for the good of the country.
That doesn’t seem very pure to me and it doesn’t even cover the Florida election debacle where Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris decided thousands of black folks shouldn’t vote. *Or the money trail from the Bin Laden family to the Bush Family corporate interests. *But I guess all this was done in the interest in the country…I can sleep better now. *By the way Gore didn’t concede the election for one simple reason, he won it. *‘Nuf said.
*For more on the above, check out the extremely well written and DOCUMENTED The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast. It should really be called, The best $14.00 you will ever spend. *I’ve purchased and donated several dozen copies, heck I give them away for free when I’m on airplanes.
3. Economic Policy of the Current Administration
It is true that economic fortunes are cyclical in nature. *It is also true that President of U.S. in truth has very little control over the economic engine of the economy (neither does Congress, they ceded that power to the Central Bank long ago). *The president and his team can advocate large scale economic policy to Congress such as tax cuts, brackets, and spending schemes. *However, we have a situation where one wealthy businessman has decided to conduct a fire sale from the Whitehouse and call it economic recovery. *The economy is suffering because the largest spender (read the government) doesn’t have any money. *Government revenues are always spent, and they are spent in the private sector. *The federal government has curtailed its revenues, and by law state governments have had to reduce their payroll tax revenues as well. *Now Joe Sixpack has an extra $300 to go shop at the mall. *Wow! *
I’m not upset or disturbed that millionaires and billionaires will be able to afford that extra Porsche or new house in the Hamptons. *I am concerned about the logical consequence of all these tax cuts; the elimination of federal and state programs, i.e. Social Security and Public Education. *If the president is an honest man, as many claim he is, he should level with America and say the government shouldn’t be involved in these endeavors and here is your money back. *Instead, he has chosen a backdoor approach to starve these programs of funding, precipitating their collapse…so they can be snatched up later for bargain prices under a privatization scheme. *Never before has an administration had such contempt for working class people and the institutions that serve them as this one.
If the president really wanted to drive the economy he would push to eliminate payroll tax on the first $40,000 of income for individuals. *To those of you not yet in the real world (paying bills and working full time) making $40,000/year or less in San Francisco sucks. *This would affect a huge portion of society…people would actually be able to save money instead of living paycheck to paycheck. Not only that it would encourage companies to hire workers...employers have to match the some of the taxes removed from your paychecks. On second thought though, I have my $300 so I'm o.k. GWB should look not to Ronald Reagan but to FDR, people need jobs...working people grow economies, not trickle down economics. And lets face it, his own dad called it voodoo economics.
The result of these rabid kick-backs to the rich will be the elimination of the middle-class. *The middle class is an unnecessary component in a free market anyway. *Wealth will continue to be consolidated while the ‘middle classes’ are squeezed by property and income tax legislation enacted on the state level to makeup for declining payroll revenues. *But if you’ve never received a $5000 property tax bill, you probably wouldn’t know that. Nor would you know it if you are still in HS/college, but again, I digress.
O.k. *So, I castigated one party more than another…but unfortunately it’s all true. *The Republic is in serious trouble, but people are too focused on the acquiring the biggest SUV and the largest house that they don’t have time to pay attention to a tyrannical government heck-bent on rewarding wealthy cronies with generous kickbacks. *They call is an 'aspirational culture', as if hyper consumerism is a good thing.
What really is going on here is two competing visions for the future of the county.
One wants to move the country back into a time economic and social Jim-Crow wrapped in a religious myth fabric. *The creation of a religious oligarchy. *Class warfare is real and is occurring every time taxes for the very few are cut at the expense of many. *I’m sure you can guess which party platform that is. *
Another seeks a progressive stance and acknowledges that people are not created equally but they are equal under the law…but that understands since people administer the law there will be flaws. *That people have the right to self determination and happiness no matter their socio-economic status, race, gender, or sexual orientation.
I don’t want to get into any flaming contests on this listserve, so if you have any angry responses to this post, e-mail me. *I’ll gladly conduct intelligent dialogue with anyone interested.
Nothing needs so reforming as other people's habits.