kMAN,
Just for the record, I agree with you in principal on taxes, reallocation of wealth and other fiscal issues.
I am more of a liberterian than anything else, and as a result would like a flat tax, or a sales tax, and the ellimination of welfare, the privatization of heath care, social security etc
The reason I keep making this point is that I get mislabeled a marxiat leaning lefty, who loves Kerry or something. It couldnt be further from the truth.
I get this reputation largely because I am not shy about my antipathy for the patriot act/Iraq etc...Since those are hot button issues, one often takes a view on those, and bases your ideology on that.
It is a huge problem with the viligant nature of bi-partisan politics.
TO put this into perspective, I hate Rush Limbuagh, George Bush, Sean Hannity etc...but I admire John Stossel a shit load, and he is considered a liberal's worst enemy.
I am also a supporter of the 2nd amendment, and opposed to affirmnitive action.
Basically, I am in favor of small government, which puts me in good favor with libs somedays, and with conservatives others.
I just dont want people to assume I will be voting for Kerry, or that I really admire him or something. I will vote liberterian, though I do feel the democrat is the lesser of the two evils in this case, because the patriot act, and the war.
Sorry for the diatribe.
Just for the record, I agree with you in principal on taxes, reallocation of wealth and other fiscal issues.
I am more of a liberterian than anything else, and as a result would like a flat tax, or a sales tax, and the ellimination of welfare, the privatization of heath care, social security etc
The reason I keep making this point is that I get mislabeled a marxiat leaning lefty, who loves Kerry or something. It couldnt be further from the truth.
I get this reputation largely because I am not shy about my antipathy for the patriot act/Iraq etc...Since those are hot button issues, one often takes a view on those, and bases your ideology on that.
It is a huge problem with the viligant nature of bi-partisan politics.
TO put this into perspective, I hate Rush Limbuagh, George Bush, Sean Hannity etc...but I admire John Stossel a shit load, and he is considered a liberal's worst enemy.
I am also a supporter of the 2nd amendment, and opposed to affirmnitive action.
Basically, I am in favor of small government, which puts me in good favor with libs somedays, and with conservatives others.
I just dont want people to assume I will be voting for Kerry, or that I really admire him or something. I will vote liberterian, though I do feel the democrat is the lesser of the two evils in this case, because the patriot act, and the war.
Sorry for the diatribe.
chonce - I understand where you are coming from. I was actually more independent than anything until the last couple of years. I really started following politics after 9/11/01. After that date, all I heard was how much Bush is a facist, racist, murderer for taking the war to the terrorists.
Everyone on the left was quick to criticize Bush but yet they couldn't offer up any solutions. To me, that is pretty ignorant to rip someone for what they do and not be able to provide a better solution.....and this hasn't stopped for 2.5 years.
That said, I can thank the liberals for making me a Republican. So thank you liberals for bringing me to my senses.
KMAN
Everyone on the left was quick to criticize Bush but yet they couldn't offer up any solutions. To me, that is pretty ignorant to rip someone for what they do and not be able to provide a better solution.....and this hasn't stopped for 2.5 years.
That said, I can thank the liberals for making me a Republican. So thank you liberals for bringing me to my senses.
KMAN
KMAN, are you sure you just weren't hearing the French or the Germans? I don't think anyone but the extreme left ever resorted to statements that you thought you heard. In Europe just before the Iraq invasion I heard plenty of that, but it was nothing of that sort in this country. Even CNN was accused by many of being blatantly pro Bush and fairly positive on the war, presumably because it was good for ratings. Still though the President was supported by much more than half the population in going into action so I think you overhype what you "heard". The issues have come up now because the planning was great until after they captured Baghdad. At that point we were supposed to find WMD, the people there were supposed to love us, and we were supposed to be able to quickly write a Constitution and then get out of there leaving just minimal troops. None of that has happened because it looks like the planning and intelligence were bad. People take issue with that. There is little of this facist or racist stuff coming from the "left", there is just questions about who the President surrounds himself with and the fact that it appears like Bush and his team just want to bury their heads in the sand and act like it doesn't matter. Bad intelligence backing unprepared actions is not what you expect of the US. And the solutions are simple really, stop being so certain of poor intelligence and wait until you are ready for all phases of the battle. There doesn't have to be some grand plan. Bush and his team just don't have patience to do the right things, they have elections to win so every decision is based on votes. Insisting on a June 30 handover of Iraqi sovereignty just because he doesn't want that hanging over the election is yet again another purely political move, one that everyone can clearly see through. That is what, beyond everything else, that pisses me off about this guy. People in office should act to the best of their abilities and not worry about getting re-elected. If they do a competent job the benefit of incumbency will more than take care of it.
WildBill - I don't know who on this board is really from the US or from another country but just look at the posts........ Are you telling me that people aren't calling Bush all sorts of things? It's been going on for months. They call him names and rip everything he does but don't offer any solutions....it's everyday.
Regarding the handling of Iraq.....It's easy to say that we weren't prepared or needed to wait for better intelligence now, however, I think had we not tried so long to go through the UN and given Saddam 3 months to hide his WMD that we would have found them by now.
Specifically what should have been done different?
Regarding the handling of Iraq.....It's easy to say that we weren't prepared or needed to wait for better intelligence now, however, I think had we not tried so long to go through the UN and given Saddam 3 months to hide his WMD that we would have found them by now.
Specifically what should have been done different?
Kman: you have to make a distinction between Americans you regard as leftist and those of us on this site who are internationals and leftist. I can say with certainty that the international view of the Democrats is nowhere near as leftist as Republicans think they are ... in fact, I would compare the Dems with Canada's Conservatives in many ways.
Also, disdain for the Bush administration by internationals almost solely revolves around his support for US hegemonic agendas, something that many Dems would support as well. The international community is somewhat alarmed by the US's (specifically Bush for the moment) disdain for international organisations which do not unapologetically support US interests ... the attack on Iraq, multinational corporate agendas, etc. all fall under this umbrella.
We are as proud and as patriotic within our own borders as you are within yours -- the only difference is that our domestic agendas don't really interfere with yours a whole lot. Your sovereignty as an American isn't exactly threatened by the Canadian foreign policy agenda. Turn the tables, though, and you'd probably see where we are coming from.
Also, disdain for the Bush administration by internationals almost solely revolves around his support for US hegemonic agendas, something that many Dems would support as well. The international community is somewhat alarmed by the US's (specifically Bush for the moment) disdain for international organisations which do not unapologetically support US interests ... the attack on Iraq, multinational corporate agendas, etc. all fall under this umbrella.
We are as proud and as patriotic within our own borders as you are within yours -- the only difference is that our domestic agendas don't really interfere with yours a whole lot. Your sovereignty as an American isn't exactly threatened by the Canadian foreign policy agenda. Turn the tables, though, and you'd probably see where we are coming from.
KMAN, I originally thought the invasion at the time wasn't unreasonable because I had the reasonable expectation that the team planning all the moves had decent intelligence and a solid after the battle plan. Now it turns out to be nothing of the sort. It is the responsibility of the people making the call to invade to make sure that is all sorted out before bullets start flying. That is what I fault them for, not the invasion or the row at the UN or whatever.
Still I don't know how you can mistaken an extremely small minority of people that used vile names for Bush as being representatives of all liberals. I happened upon one small march against the war just before it started. There were only a few hundred people and most of them were asking for peace. There were no vile names, those things were seen in foreign countries. People in this country, whether they like Bush or not, still at heart accept his power and hope he uses it to our benefit. Sure some hope he fails in some ways for political gain, but that doesn't mean that you resort to claims of facism or racism. Maybe you perceived this wrongly, but I doubt more than 2% of the country belief this and will tell it to you. It does look extreme when they say it, but trust me the vast majority of the country doesn't hold that belief. Just like I know the vast majority of the country doesn't believe that we should change our Constitution to be the 10 commandments and that church-going should be mandatory. I have heard a few of those arguments in the face of everything the Constitution stands for, but I am not dumb enough to assume that is representative of all conservatives.
Still I don't know how you can mistaken an extremely small minority of people that used vile names for Bush as being representatives of all liberals. I happened upon one small march against the war just before it started. There were only a few hundred people and most of them were asking for peace. There were no vile names, those things were seen in foreign countries. People in this country, whether they like Bush or not, still at heart accept his power and hope he uses it to our benefit. Sure some hope he fails in some ways for political gain, but that doesn't mean that you resort to claims of facism or racism. Maybe you perceived this wrongly, but I doubt more than 2% of the country belief this and will tell it to you. It does look extreme when they say it, but trust me the vast majority of the country doesn't hold that belief. Just like I know the vast majority of the country doesn't believe that we should change our Constitution to be the 10 commandments and that church-going should be mandatory. I have heard a few of those arguments in the face of everything the Constitution stands for, but I am not dumb enough to assume that is representative of all conservatives.
I understand that we haven't found the WMD yet but what part of the intelligence was not solid? Everyone agrees that Saddam has or had these weapons, just as the intelligence suggests. I could see where you could fault the intelligence for not knowing where he hid the weapons but if I hid $100 dollars in the state of California (which is roughly the size of Iraq) even with the best intelligence in the world you may never find the money.
As far as after the war, what would you have done different? What don't you agree with? You are always going to have insurgents after every war, just look back at history. And unfortunately soldiers are going to die. To only lose 500-550 people after taking over a whole country that's pretty impressive if you ask me.
Also, I do understand that not all liberals are hateful to Bush. However, many on this board are. And I remember seeing signs at every rally last year that said "Bush is this....or Bush is that...." . For me personally the news media and the people on this board have made me a Republican.
As far as after the war, what would you have done different? What don't you agree with? You are always going to have insurgents after every war, just look back at history. And unfortunately soldiers are going to die. To only lose 500-550 people after taking over a whole country that's pretty impressive if you ask me.
Also, I do understand that not all liberals are hateful to Bush. However, many on this board are. And I remember seeing signs at every rally last year that said "Bush is this....or Bush is that...." . For me personally the news media and the people on this board have made me a Republican.
As far as the international coummunity goes...could their be any phonier lot??
Here is France, germany,Russia all voting for UN resolutions (17) yet they were found to have made more deals with saddam than anyone.
So far those are the only countries that have come under the definition "Blood for Oil"
Its been all american boys and girls dying for those 3 countries oil contracts...Yet they try to come off as being some sort of righteous.
Here is France, germany,Russia all voting for UN resolutions (17) yet they were found to have made more deals with saddam than anyone.
So far those are the only countries that have come under the definition "Blood for Oil"
Its been all american boys and girls dying for those 3 countries oil contracts...Yet they try to come off as being some sort of righteous.
I dont know exactly when we are going ot suffer form the bush deficit, but it is inevitable we will.
If you favor the iraq war, then there is some justification for it.
But 1.5 bill to promote marriage?
a huge move to support the national endowment of the arts?
I just think, war on terror aside, this is way too much needless spending by a so-called fiscal conservative.
The only real cut he has made has been on a pretty fruitless tax cut, and je is the first president since hoover o provide a net loss of jobs.
If it wasnt for the war on terror, these numbers who have him struggling for support from some conservatives as well, as they are not fond of needless spending.
Hell even some bush loyalists are griping about the above spending.
If you favor the iraq war, then there is some justification for it.
But 1.5 bill to promote marriage?
a huge move to support the national endowment of the arts?
I just think, war on terror aside, this is way too much needless spending by a so-called fiscal conservative.
The only real cut he has made has been on a pretty fruitless tax cut, and je is the first president since hoover o provide a net loss of jobs.
If it wasnt for the war on terror, these numbers who have him struggling for support from some conservatives as well, as they are not fond of needless spending.
Hell even some bush loyalists are griping about the above spending.
Xpandas right.
The perception in Europe of US politics is Right wing, and Really Right wing.
(AKA Democrats and Republicans)
You don't actually have left wing parties, not real ones.
The only place that was as skewed as this in Europe that I can think of was the Irish Republic's two main parties.
The reason they were so skewed to the right was because of the all-pervasive influence of religion in that country, something that may have a bearing on your own politics.
The perception in Europe of US politics is Right wing, and Really Right wing.
(AKA Democrats and Republicans)
You don't actually have left wing parties, not real ones.
The only place that was as skewed as this in Europe that I can think of was the Irish Republic's two main parties.
The reason they were so skewed to the right was because of the all-pervasive influence of religion in that country, something that may have a bearing on your own politics.
It's not about giving the money to anybody, it's about meeting (or coming closer to meeting) the budgetary requirements that are already in place -- those set by Bush and the Republican Congress. When looking to meet the budget shortfala t this time, we need to look first to the most successful who had already been given a tax break and take some of that back. We can't put it on the backs of the middle and lower class.
If you start from the premise that we need to raise revenue to meet the4 budget in place, then you have to decide from where we raise the funds. Looking first to the middle and lower class after the rich had already been given huge tax cuts is just ridiculous, both in fairness and sound fiscal policy.
It's those on the 'right' that argue otherwise that are playing the class warfare card.
If you start from the premise that we need to raise revenue to meet the4 budget in place, then you have to decide from where we raise the funds. Looking first to the middle and lower class after the rich had already been given huge tax cuts is just ridiculous, both in fairness and sound fiscal policy.
It's those on the 'right' that argue otherwise that are playing the class warfare card.
