• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush thinks he's the rebirth of Christ

Naughty Nurse

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
labwitch said:
he may think he's the rebirth, but physicians who know (like me and my son) state categorically that he resembles the AFTERBIRTH of something unearthly.

:lamo Brilliant! :rofl
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
skabanger13 said:
give mo some proof that " most " people who join the military don't make it on the out side are that thay cant do any thang else. because you see i was in the military and thar for know people that are and have been in and from what iv seen your logic is false, so prove your point.
I never said that most people in the military can't make it on the outside. The point I was making is that the military treats some people abominably. There is an article in a recent Harpers (or maybe it was Atlantic) about recruuiting practices and the lies that are told prospective recruits that you might find of interest. I may have it around the house still, and I'll try to give you a firmer reference.

BTW, don't pull rank. I was in the AAF too. ;)
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kenneth T. Cornelius said:
Here is a thought for you: Those who are grotesquely overcompensated should be taxed disproportionately. Also, class warfare is a fact and the poor didn't start it, it is a damn shame that there are people in this country for whom joining the army is a step up. :razz:
The class warfare game keeps getting played over and over. i have been close to poor all my life and for most of it, I have not envied the rich.....When new things come out only the rich can afford until more can be made, which brings the price down for everyone else. Like A/Cs,TVs,cars,computers, cell phones,etc. When I was a teen I remember seeing a fake car phone antennae.Put it on your car and people think your loaded because only the rich can have car phones. Now everyone has one.....And one more thing, the poor has never given me a job.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alienken said:
The class warfare game keeps getting played over and over. i have been close to poor all my life and for most of it, I have not envied the rich.....When new things come out only the rich can afford until more can be made, which brings the price down for everyone else. Like A/Cs,TVs,cars,computers, cell phones,etc. When I was a teen I remember seeing a fake car phone antennae.Put it on your car and people think your loaded because only the rich can have car phones. Now everyone has one.....And one more thing, the poor has never given me a job.
And you are perfectly OK with the fact that your economic situation could be bettered with a Democrat in office? You are pefectly OK losing power almost daily, as CEOs now make 425 times what the avg worker makes? This is compared to the UK where a CEO makes nly 24 times what the avg worker makes. You stand to gain economically with a Dem in office, yet you vote Republican. It boggles the mind.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
anomaly said:
And you are perfectly OK with the fact that your economic situation could be bettered with a Democrat in office? You are pefectly OK losing power almost daily, as CEOs now make 425 times what the avg worker makes? This is compared to the UK where a CEO makes nly 24 times what the avg worker makes. You stand to gain economically with a Dem in office, yet you vote Republican. It boggles the mind.

Have you read "What's a Matter with Kansas?" It's a good read as is "Nickle and Dimmed"

It's kind of funny how the GOP has sold this idea of "it's only fair" and "everybody's benefiting from these policies" to the masses. Wealthy people are not interested in more wealthy people. Yet the GOP has manged to convince so many that every body could and can be rich if they just work hard enough or are smart enough. About three/four years ago I was sitting in the Continental Airlines First Class Lounge in Houston waiting for a flight back to Portland. The two guys at the bar next to me were having the typical airport bar talk. "I had a lay over, I was at a sales meetings Blah, Blah, Blah." One of them said "I couldn't get First Class yesterday, had to wait until today to fly out." The other asked "Air miles?" "No, I'm paying. What the he*l? Suddenly everybody's flying first class- f*cking dot-comers" The bottom line is the world needs ditch diggers too. And ditch diggers don't tend to fill up the first class seats.
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
alienken said:
The class warfare game keeps getting played over and over. i have been close to poor all my life and for most of it, I have not envied the rich.....When new things come out only the rich can afford until more can be made, which brings the price down for everyone else. Like A/Cs,TVs,cars,computers, cell phones,etc. When I was a teen I remember seeing a fake car phone antennae.Put it on your car and people think your loaded because only the rich can have car phones. Now everyone has one.....And one more thing, the poor has never given me a job.
Poor dear, you have to wait until the rich bring down the price of a cell phone. Poor is not when you can't afford a cell phone. Poor is when you walk five miles because you can't afford the eight cent street car token or a five dollar bicycle. Poor is when you move whenever the rent goes up a couple of bucks (which means you are moving all the time.) Poor is when the nails come up thru the heels of your cardboard shoes. And so forth... Of course it's possible to be poorer than that, too. Doing without a cell phone don't cut it, though. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pacridge said:
Have you read "What's a Matter with Kansas?" It's a good read as is "Nickle and Dimmed"

It's kind of funny how the GOP has sold this idea of "it's only fair" and "everybody's benefiting from these policies" to the masses. Wealthy people are not interested in more wealthy people. Yet the GOP has manged to convince so many that every body could and can be rich if they just work hard enough or are smart enough. About three/four years ago I was sitting in the Continental Airlines First Class Lounge in Houston waiting for a flight back to Portland. The two guys at the bar next to me were having the typical airport bar talk. "I had a lay over, I was at a sales meetings Blah, Blah, Blah." One of them said "I couldn't get First Class yesterday, had to wait until today to fly out." The other asked "Air miles?" "No, I'm paying. What the he*l? Suddenly everybody's flying first class- f*cking dot-comers" The bottom line is the world needs ditch diggers too. And ditch diggers don't tend to fill up the first class seats.
Yes, I have read it, and now I'm in the middle of another Frank delight, One Market Under God. If you haven't read it, Pac, you'll love it. It contains more numbers that go against the market populist ideas we see today. Mostly, it talks of the great hypocrisy and constant lying going on by corporate America. Oddly enough, Americans hate Corporate America, but they just love their 'moral values', so they continue to vote for the party interested in keeping Corporate America on top. And now the libertarians want to privatise SS, and yet we still believe that they are for the 'common man'. It is a movement, similar to the old backlash movement, that is fuled by ignorance, massive PR, and now market populism has caught on to the idea of wanting to be 'just normal, average'. And we Americans (unlike the French) are completely buying into it, and while doing so, completely selling out the old New Deal, and the old labor movement. Now labor unions are a symbol for evil, instead of the corporations they were formed to protect workers against. Oh how times change.
 

-jess-

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
DontForgetMe said:
Hes Wishes :rofl
I am trying to post a Valid response in every topic, yet you keep responding with meager 3 word responses with no valid Argument what so ever, will you try to engage in conversation that means something?
 

labwitch

New member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
2
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
those three words made more sense than the entire discourse in this subject to this point mr. jess. and...it's true, he isn't he just wishes.
 

Strangelove

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
74
Reaction score
1
Location
simi valley
Pacridge said:
Here's a thought- before assulting anyone's post for grammer, or anything for that matter, check your spelling. Then make an attempt to direct your post to whom you're assulting. Of course you could just try to make your point without the assult altogether. Just a thought.

ummm......is this a joke?
 

walvaro

New member
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
God does not exist, is an invention of the humanity to give easy answers to difficult questions. God is for weak and infantile minds and the religions are the major blight of this world.

-Opinión de un europeo-
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
walvaro said:
God does not exist, is an invention of the humanity to give easy answers to difficult questions. God is for weak and infantile minds and the religions are the major blight of this world.

-Opinión de un europeo-
You are preaching to the choir. Welcome to the group. ;)
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,466
Reaction score
2,083
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Hoot said:
July 9th, 2004....Bush is "reported" as telling the Amish in Penn.....

"I trust God speaks through me."

Personally, I find that a little unnerving.

How can anyone believe that God speaks through them?

It reminds me of what Kerry said during the election...something along the lines of...

"We should not pray that God is on our side, but pray that we are on God's side."

Why would our President be talking to the Amish people... they don't even vote
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,361
Reaction score
7,496
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Arch Enemy said:
Why would our President be talking to the Amish people... they don't even vote

You might want to rethink that. Many Amish folks vote. When they do it is normally Republican.

Just because they do not own TV's doesn't mean they are ignorant of the world.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly[QUOTE said:
Oddly enough, Americans hate Corporate America, but they just love their 'moral values', so they continue to vote for the party interested in keeping Corporate America on top.
The only thing I find odd is the statement that Americans hate corporate America. Evidently you have forgotten, as I reminded you, that about 60% of Americans are invested in corporate stock; it is the corporations of America that provide jobs to those who wish to work; it is the corporations that pay a healthy share of the taxes that keep the country running. It is the socialists who hate corporate America. But then, they hate everything that enables free men, at every level, to increase their wealth.
And now the libertarians want to privatise SS, and yet we still believe that they are for the 'common man'. It is a movement, similar to the old backlash movement, that is fuled by ignorance, massive PR,
What's wrong with encouraging younger workers to take some of their own money and invest it in private accounts to plan for their retirement and to be able to distribute what's left to their heirs?
and now market populism has caught on to the idea of wanting to be 'just normal, average'. And we Americans (unlike the French) are completely buying into it, and while doing so, completely selling out the old New Deal, and the old labor movement. Now labor unions are a symbol for evil, instead of the corporations they were formed to protect workers against. Oh how times change.
Unions planted the seeds of their own destruction. Workers have always had the right to vote for union representation. Since WWII, fewer and fewer workers have voted for union representation. I think that current union membership represents only about 15% of the work force and is still dropping.

The unions can't even get WalMart employees to sign up. So I guess things there are not as bad as the moaners claim.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Arch Enemy said:
Why would our President be talking to the Amish people... they don't even vote
Where did I ever get the idea that the President is President of all of the people, which includes those called Amish.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
anomalyThe only thing I find odd is the statement that Americans hate corporate America. Evidently you have forgotten said:
60% of Americans own stock, yes, but what does a rising stock market, a bull market, mean? Let me point out that from 1996-2000, a full 86% of the market's advances went to the wealthiest 10% of the population. And let's be clear on why socialists actually hate corporate America, perhaps we can stop your flood of lies. Corporate America works against labor unions, they work to push globalization, they work only for a profit, thus outsourcing massive factories without caring about the thousands of workers losing their jobs, rather they care about the profit they will bring in from cheap labor. Also, if you look at history, you will see that when corporate America is doing well, laborers do poorly, and when laborers do well, corporate America does poorly. Basically, take your pick: management or labor; the minority or the majority. While you continue, for some reason, to support the small minorty, I will support the majority.

Fant said:
What's wrong with encouraging younger workers to take some of their own money and invest it in private accounts to plan for their retirement and to be able to distribute what's left to their heirs?
The problem with Bush's plan is that with it, people opting to stay in the SS system will see their benefits decrease, as a people can opt to take a third of their taxes out of the system and into private accounts. Also, Bush people acknowledge that some people will lose under this system, some people will not have enough to retire on, and with that we will see elderly poverty rise, as one Princeton econ professor has said.

Fant said:
Unions planted the seeds of their own destruction. Workers have always had the right to vote for union representation. Since WWII, fewer and fewer workers have voted for union representation. I think that current union membership represents only about 15% of the work force and is still dropping.

The unions can't even get WalMart employees to sign up. So I guess things there are not as bad as the moaners claim.
Actually, I think you'll find that unions didn't begin decreasing in membership drastically until the '80s, with Reagan. It seems simple enough that when government takes an anti-union stance, union numbers will decrease (actually, I believe that only 10% of workers now are in unions, and I don't think we can simply say this is of the workers' doing alone, you must realize the government's pro-business stance plays a part in this).
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomaly said:
60% of Americans own stock, yes, but what does a rising stock market, a bull market, mean? Let me point out that from 1996-2000, a full 86% of the market's advances went to the wealthiest 10% of the population. And let's be clear on why socialists actually hate corporate America, perhaps we can stop your flood of lies. Corporate America works against labor unions, they work to push globalization, they work only for a profit, thus outsourcing massive factories without caring about the thousands of workers losing their jobs, rather they care about the profit they will bring in from cheap labor. Also, if you look at history, you will see that when corporate America is doing well, laborers do poorly, and when laborers do well, corporate America does poorly. Basically, take your pick: management or labor; the minority or the majority. While you continue, for some reason, to support the small minorty, I will support the majority.
Get a new social studies text book. It sounds like the one you're reading from dates to the 1930s.
The problem with Bush's plan is that with it, people opting to stay in the SS system will see their benefits decrease, as a people can opt to take a third of their taxes out of the system and into private accounts.
Although I made an effort to explain this to you before, evidently you are still unaware that the Social Security was instituted in the 1930s to be a "pay as you go" program.

What that means is this. Social security contributions are paid into the General Fund. That's the fund into which all revenues go and from which all government liabilities and benefits are paid.

Are we clear so far? Everything goes into one pot. Social security contributions, income taxes, medicaid receipts, tariff collections, borrowings, etc., etc., etc.

Now. Every month when the social security benefits are due, they are paid from that fund. So are all of the other liabilities which are due that month.

Are we clear so far? Everything comes out of the same pot.

So long as the government has the power to collect, borrow, and disburse funds, that is how it will work. If social security benefits change in any way, the change will occur as all of the changes to date have occurred; as a result of Congressional legislation.

If that is not clear, let me know and I'll explain it in simpler terms.
Also, Bush people acknowledge that some people will lose under this system
I can't find the "BS" Smiley icon so this one will have to do. :rofl
some people will not have enough to retire on,
Where in the world did you ever get the mistaken idea that social security was intended to be the sole source a retirees income? From day one, right on up to the present, it had been intended as a supplement to the pension or the savings that a person has been accumulating. The fact that some make no provision for the future is not the fault of the system.

Of course the socialist in you demands cradle to grave government support for the masses. How come the Democrats didn't think of that during the forty year period in which they controlled the Congress?
and with that we will see elderly poverty rise, as one Princeton econ professor has said.
Of course he did. What else would one expect to hear from a socialist-lib-dem apologist from Princeton?
Actually, I think you'll find that unions didn't begin decreasing in membership drastically until the '80s, with Reagan. It seems simple enough that when government takes an anti-union stance, union numbers will decrease (actually, I believe that only 10% of workers now are in unions, and I don't think we can simply say this is of the workers' doing alone, you must realize the government's pro-business stance plays a part in this).
The statistics seem to refute what you say.

Trends In Union Membership
By Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP

The U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the first increase in total union membership in five years occurred in 1998. Membership in unions increased by 101,000, equaling 16.2 million represented employees overall. When viewed as a percentage of the general workforce, however, union members comprised only 13.9% of employed hourly and salaried workers in 1998, which is down from 14.1% in 1997. When government employees are taken out of the mix, the numbers are even lower, with less than 10% of private sector employees being unionized. In fact, union membership has steadily fallen since the Bureau first began gathering data regarding membership statistics.

Most, if not all, of last year's growth in union membership occurred in the public sector. The Bureau found 6.9 million union members working in all levels of government, which accounts for nearly 38% of total government employment. The number of union members employed in private industries, however, decreased by nearly 50,000. Among union members in private industry, transportation and public utilities employers have the highest unionized rate. Construction was next, followed by manufacturing and mining. Unionization rates were lowest in sales, farming, forestry and fishing occupations.

If your employees begin talking about organizing, you may want to mention these trends to them. In other words, ask them this question: If unions are so great, why have the vast majority of American workers decided to stay union-free?
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fantasea said:
Get a new social studies text book. It sounds like the one you're reading from dates to the 1930s.
Actually, I'm citing the stats from a book published in '00. If you choose to ignore facts, that's your choice.


Fant said:
Although I made an effort to explain this to you before, evidently you are still unaware that the Social Security was instituted in the 1930s to be a "pay as you go" program.

What that means is this. Social security contributions are paid into the General Fund. That's the fund into which all revenues go and from which all government liabilities and benefits are paid.

Are we clear so far? Everything goes into one pot. Social security contributions, income taxes, medicaid receipts, tariff collections, borrowings, etc., etc., etc.

Now. Every month when the social security benefits are due, they are paid from that fund. So are all of the other liabilities which are due that month.

Are we clear so far? Everything comes out of the same pot.

So long as the government has the power to collect, borrow, and disburse funds, that is how it will work. If social security benefits change in any way, the change will occur as all of the changes to date have occurred; as a result of Congressional legislation.

If that is not clear, let me know and I'll explain it in simpler terms.
That's nice, but what I'm talking about is Bush's new plan, you do not mention it. SS is a pay as you go system, and now Bush is letting people opt out of a third of their 'pay as you go' taxes supposed to go to current retirees and put it in a private account. Do you realize that?

Fant said:
I can't find the "BS" Smiley icon so this one will have to do. :rofl
Where in the world did you ever get the mistaken idea that social security was intended to be the sole source a retirees income? From day one, right on up to the present, it had been intended as a supplement to the pension or the savings that a person has been accumulating. The fact that some make no provision for the future is not the fault of the system.

Of course the socialist in you demands cradle to grave government support for the masses. How come the Democrats didn't think of that during the forty year period in which they controlled the Congress?Of course he did. What else would one expect to hear from a socialist-lib-dem apologist from Princeton?
Uh, I think you're a bit mistaken here. If you invest money, your return is completely dependent on whether the market is up or down when you retire. Got that? That's what I'm talking about when I say 'some will lose'. And of course SS isn't supposed to be one's total retirement, but many poor do not have any spare money to invest or put into savings. Do you understand that? This system then will either shortchange them through a cut in benefits or it will make them put their money in the stock market, and pray for the best.

And speaking of Dems, actually they were instrumental in making SS solvent for another 60 years in 1983 (not quite sure on the year there).

I find it absolutely hilarious how you reject any expert who says something you do not agree with. Perhaps you should read what he said before you deny it, lol (its in economics forum under 'SS and HC'.).

Fant said:
The statistics seem to refute what you say.

Trends In Union Membership
By Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP

The U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the first increase in total union membership in five years occurred in 1998. Membership in unions increased by 101,000, equaling 16.2 million represented employees overall. When viewed as a percentage of the general workforce, however, union members comprised only 13.9% of employed hourly and salaried workers in 1998, which is down from 14.1% in 1997. When government employees are taken out of the mix, the numbers are even lower, with less than 10% of private sector employees being unionized. In fact, union membership has steadily fallen since the Bureau first began gathering data regarding membership statistics.

Most, if not all, of last year's growth in union membership occurred in the public sector. The Bureau found 6.9 million union members working in all levels of government, which accounts for nearly 38% of total government employment. The number of union members employed in private industries, however, decreased by nearly 50,000. Among union members in private industry, transportation and public utilities employers have the highest unionized rate. Construction was next, followed by manufacturing and mining. Unionization rates were lowest in sales, farming, forestry and fishing occupations.

If your employees begin talking about organizing, you may want to mention these trends to them. In other words, ask them this question: If unions are so great, why have the vast majority of American workers decided to stay union-free?
That's a pretty biased source there, especially with that last paragraph. Good stats, but you fail to mention the effect of union busting in the '80s and '90s and the gov't placing itself firmly behind business and not labor.
 
Last edited:

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
{Quote=anomoly]
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Get a new social studies text book. It sounds like the one you're reading from dates to the 1930s.
Actually, I'm citing the stats from a book published in '00. If you choose to ignore facts, that's your choice.
Better get your money back. The one you have has never been updated.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
anomoly said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Although I made an effort to explain this to you before, evidently you are still unaware that the Social Security was instituted in the 1930s to be a "pay as you go" program.

What that means is this. Social security contributions are paid into the General Fund. That's the fund into which all revenues go and from which all government liabilities and benefits are paid.

Are we clear so far? Everything goes into one pot. Social security contributions, income taxes, medicaid receipts, tariff collections, borrowings, etc., etc., etc.

Now. Every month when the social security benefits are due, they are paid from that fund. So are all of the other liabilities which are due that month.

Are we clear so far? Everything comes out of the same pot.

So long as the government has the power to collect, borrow, and disburse funds, that is how it will work. If social security benefits change in any way, the change will occur as all of the changes to date have occurred; as a result of Congressional legislation.

If that is not clear, let me know and I'll explain it in simpler terms.
That's nice, but what I'm talking about is Bush's new plan, you do not mention it. SS is a pay as you go system, and now Bush is letting people opt out of a third of their 'pay as you go' taxes supposed to go to current retirees and put it in a private account. Do you realize that?
Of course, I realize that. What you don't realize is that, as the wildest exaggeration, if all social security taxes stopped, the monthly benefits would continue to be paid without interruption. Other taxes would be enacted, or funds would be borrowed. However the social security benefits would not stop.

What's wrong with allowing younger people, WHO CHOOSE TO DO SO, TO PUT SOME OF THEIR MONEY IN A PRIVATE ACCOUNT, WHICH THEY WOULD OWN, WHICH THEY COULD PASS ON TO THEIR HEIRS, AND WHICH WOULD BELONG SOLELY TO THEM?
 
Top Bottom