Stu Ghatze
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 531
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Synch said:The Democrats have a zero chance of gaining enough so they will have a majority in Congress, unless there is major change they still won't have it by 08.
However, since usually Republican campaign starts late, projections now are inaccurate, Kerry started his 04 campaign very early..
Oh my God, what if you're right? He'll never get reelected.disneydude said:But fortunately for this country the number of Bush apologists is decreasing every day.
disneydude said:If you carefully read my response who will read that I am referring to the 2008 STATE elections which have nothing to do with GWB.
Stinger said:So tell me why I should vote Democrat, what is their plan for the economy and our situation in the Middle East. What is their energy policy? What do they propose to do about Social Security? Can you tell me what they plan to do without using the word Republican in your response?
We don't want you. Sorry.:2wave:So tell me why I should vote Democrat:
1. Reward corporations for keeping high quality jobs in Americawhat is their plan for the economy
1. Step up efforts to capture/kill Bin Ladenand our situation in the Middle East.
1. Invest more in research for alternative fuels - a NASA type program.What is their energy policy?
1. Raise the cap above current $90,000.What do they propose to do about Social Security?
Can you tell me what they plan to do without using the word Republican in your response?
hipsterdufus said:We don't want you. Sorry.:2wave:
1. Reward corporations for keeping high quality jobs in America
2. Fiscal responsibility by balancing the budgets
3. Eliminate offshore corporate tax evasion
1. Step up efforts to capture/kill Bin Laden
2. Rebuild strong international alliances
3. Strategic redeployment of troops - military realignment, a global campaign to counter hateful Anti-American ideology
4. Smarter support for Iraq's renewal and reconstruction
1. Invest more in research for alternative fuels - a NASA type program.
2. Get biofuels to the pumps - give tax incentives to oil companies that add bio fuels.
3. Face reality of global warming
4. Ask Americans to conserve - tax incentives for fuel efficient vehicles.
1. Raise the cap above current $90,000.
2. Goal is to have 90% of wages and salaries pay into SS (we're currently at 84.9%)
Stinger said:How? What does that mean? Corporate welfare? Tax cuts for corporations?
ClintonNice goal but how, they've never shown it before.
How, what laws are they going to change, we already penalize our corporations by taxing profits made in foriegn countries which other countries don't do. You can't prevent someone from taking their money offshore, it's suppose to be a free country you know.
By doing what that we aren't doing now?
Nice goal but how, what are you willing to give up to them?
Where and how, what troops are you going to move where when the goal is to bring them home.
Here's a startSuch as what?
Not nearly enoughBush has already done that.
We do that already, but strange to see you supporting giving money to big corporations, if Bush did that you'd complain.
Join the 20th centuryMeaning what, what are they going to do when they face it?
If they are so much more efficient then why take money from one person and give it to those who drive them?
So raising taxes is the answer to SS, not according to the experts. You know that means you are reniging on the contract, the promise.
Dem's will talk about once privatization is off the table. Truthfully the bigger crisis is in Medicaire / Medicaid.Why not everyone pay more since everyone gets the same back? But then the Dems refuse to talk about SS so why should I believe you when you say they will when they get elected?
Those are mostly nice sounding goals, but how do you do them and why aren't they already proposing them?
hipsterdufus said:We have enough corporate welfare. This would be tax incentives for corporations to not outsource jobbs overseas.
Clinton
American corporations are setting up subsidiaries in foreign countries to avoid pying their fair share. Think Bermuda. The first thing to do would be to not give any Govt contracts to companies that operate like that.
1. Re-deploy troops
2. Use some of our capital gained from helping them during the Sunami to put pressure on Pakistan to give up OBL
What do you have to give them?
How about treating other countries with respect?
How about kicking John Bolton out of the UN - that's a start.
1. Bring Home the troops that have been deployed the longest.
2. Bring Home the Reserves and Nat Guard to help with Homeland Security
3. Re-deploy other troops to capture OBL
Here's a start
1. End "cost-plus" contract system
2. Institue an accounting system
\3. End no-bid contracts
Not nearly enough
Not nearly enough.
It's not strange when it makes sense. If Bush did it, I would support it.
Join the 20th century
1. Reduce gas house emissions
2. Revisit Kyoto
3. Reinstitute stricter environmental standards
The goal is to wean Americans off oil. Now we have incentives to buy SUVs vehicles over 6,000 lbs. That's ridiculous
Having Americans pay their FAIR SHARE is part of the answer, yes.
Dem's will talk about once privatization is off the table. Truthfully the bigger crisis is in Medicaire / Medicaid.
They are proposing them. It's more fun for the MSM to repeat the Mantra that Dems have no ideas and avoid the reality.
In a nutshell, the response to hipster's question says an awful lot more than just four words. It is a perfect example of how American's have become mentally disconnected from 90% of the reality in the world.Originally Posted by hipsterdufus
Quote:
How about treating other countries with respect?Originally Posted by Stinger
What does that mean?
Stinger said:Then why have they blocked any such attempts, simply don't tax profits made overseas that are taxed by the countries where those profits are made. The Democrats oppose these measures. And "tax incentives" ARE corporate welfare and "tax give aways to the rich" according to Democrats.
Stinger said:ie. Fiscal responsibility. Nope, his budgets wanted higher spending that Congress authorized and he was dragged kicking and screaming to signing the ones that did pass. Again Democrats in congress have no record of fiscal restraint or cutting spending. The reason you gives applies more, though not enough, to Republicans.
Stinger said:They will find other means but see my post above. This is a very very small issue anyway.
How?Stinger said:We're already doing that.
See BilloStinger said:What does that mean?
Stinger said:And put someone in who will bow down to the other countries and have less interest in our own national interest. Certainly not a reason for me to vote Democrats. BTW Bolton has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Stinger said:We tend to do that, but are you saying the Democrats want to take over day to day operation of the military and have congress run it. Boy now you have really convinced me I shouldn't vote Democrat.
Stinger said:Have the military operate on domestic soil. How are you going to change the constitution and can you cite any Democrat who has made such a proposal?
Stinger said:What military leader has said we need more troop there? Or are you saying the Democrats elected to congress will take over running military operations if elected?
Stinger said:Why when it may end up costing us more? Do you think companies bidding the contract will not make sure thier firm bids are not high enough to make thier margins or something or that provisions for cost overruns caused by government will not be included.
Stinger said:But can you name the Democrat who is proposing this?
It sucks. We missing 8 Billion dollars in Iraq.Stinger said:We have one.
Many are, including Reid, Obama, Pelosi and SlaughterStinger said:What Democrat is proposing this?
How? It's woefully inadequateStinger said:Me: Bush has already done that.
Stinger said:Well what is the Democrat proposal and who is making it? Are you saying give ADM more money?
.Stinger said:The Dems voted down Kyoto right along with the Reps
Stinger said:The market place will do that without Democrats, why do you think they can do better than the market itself and who and what is the specific proposal?
Stinger said:Me: So raising taxes is the answer to SS, not according to the experts. You know that means you are reniging on the contract, the promise.
Stinger said:What is their "fair share" the poor pay less than the rich now, we get the same benifits. FAIR SHARE is a bogus arguement. But bottom line is raising taxes is the Democrat answer, that's it? Reniging on the contrat is the answer?
Stinger said:The Democrats THEMSELVES admit they have no proposals. Practically everything you have said are nice sounding GOALS to some but not practical courses of action, not solutions.
disneydude said:Stu:
You and your fellow Bush Apologists can continue to live in your bubble and remember better days.....
But fortunately for this country the number of Bush apologists is decreasing every day.
Suffice it to say that the one-issue voters in this country will not have the political power to influence the numerous state elections this year.
You are in for a rude awakening....hey but I say great......continue to live in your fantasy world believing that all is good and great in this adminstration and you will never see it until it hits you.
Stu Ghatze said:Our "fantacy" world..? You must be joking, ..its the democratic party that has been living in a fantacy world for decades, ..& even live in their "Alternate Reality" state continually!
Phoney civil rights issues, race baiting .. the democratic party's lust to expanding liberties for foreign nationals at a dangerous time in history, ..& even Dick Durbin suggesting terrorists should have constitutional rights, ..huh huh??:smile:
Bush stole the 04' election, Bush blew up the New Orlean's levees, Bush is a racist, Bush is a liar, Bush wants to be king, Bush is a nazi, Bush, Bush, Bush..geezuz the most lunatic conspiracy theories, & disingenuine democratic party behavior all in bed with the media, & their phoney tainted manipulated polls created to get the desired results that they seek.
Why do YOU think those FORGED, fraudulent military documents were introduced by Dan Rather & CBS, & the media a few weeks BEFORE the 04' election?
The media gives us half truths, mis-truths...& incomplete information, & loves to help create, & invent talking points, & controversy.
The REAL mainstream majority holds them in contempt, ...& you WILL find that out after these mid-term elections, & in 08' as well.
Remember debaters, when backed into a corner, go for the spelling errors. That'll show 'em. :roll:hipsterdufus said:It's "fantasy" world.
hipsterdufus said:Now that's the smartes thing you've said in years.
hipsterdufus said:I'm not talking at all about profits made overseas. I'm talking about American companies setting up phony foreign subsidiaries overseas to avoid paying taxes. Big difference.
You just make this stuff up as you go don't you?
Most estimates of corporate tax evasion come in between 10 and 50 billion a year, depending on who you talk to.
Glad to help. Like I said, we don't want you.
Here's one plan by Brian Schweitzer There are others.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/60minutes/main1343604.shtml
Who did? What Dems?
Who admits that? You're long on rhetoric and short on specifics.
KCConservative said:Is there anything you wanted to correct here, hip? :lol:
Stinger said:They still pay taxes on profits they make here just as if they were here, they just don't pay US taxes on profits they make overseas, which is as every other country does which gives those foreign countries a leg up. But if you believe we are free and have freedom how are you going to stop the freedom we have to invest where we want to and do buisness outside the country if we want to?
Stinger said:Fiscal responsibility. Nope, his budgets wanted higher spending that Congress authorized and he was dragged kicking and screaming to signing the ones that did pass. Again Democrats in congress have no record of fiscal restraint or cutting spending. The reason you gives applies more, though not enough, to Republicans.
Oh you didn't that. Not surprised. What I posted is factual you can try to rebut it but since it is 100% true you won't be able to. Clinton was NOT a fiscally responsible President as much as the left trys to rewrite history.
Stinger said:You need every vote you can get and I being an Independent who votes Democrats sometimes am the PRIME voter you want.
Stinger said:Any commander that says that has been ostracized by the administration.
FYI - Any war is a combination of military action and political action. If you think bombs are going to win the war on terror you're sadly naive.
Stinger said:Ah you are claiming the Democrat plan for energy is to strip mine Montana, I don't think so and this renegade govenor certainly doesn't represent Democrats in general or a Democrat plan of action as the article clear shows. Amazing you would try to use it as a reason to vote for Democrats nationally. Besides Bush has already proposed increasing coal production, this guy is a day late.
http://democrats.senate.gov/energy/factsheets/121205.htmlSenate Democrats Making America Energy Independent by 2020
Senate Democrats want to make America energy independent by 2020 by improving energy security, generating jobs and economic growth, and protecting Americans from price spikes and price gouging.
Make America more secure
Improve energy and national security. Independence from foreign oil sources would save money and protect America. According to analysts, up to $50 billion in taxpayer money is being spent each year to protect the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. Better management of our strategic reserves of crude oil (and gasoline, jet fuel, diesel and heating oil) would reduce the impact of oil supply disruptions.
Send less money out of the country. Just in 2005, America will have sent more than $200 billion overseas to oil-producing nations to pay for petroleum products, including crude oil. Over the last five years, an average of $137 billion per year went to those countries. Investing that money here at home would have a huge impact on our balance of trade, the economy, and job creation.
Create new jobs and economic growth
Create a new energy industry, exports and jobs. An Apollo Project-like initiative to invest federal research and development dollars in advanced energy technology would create millions of new highly skilled, well-paid jobs. Improving energy science and technology education and training would make America the leader in energy efficient product manufacturing and exporting. Aggressive federal leadership in procuring very efficient and advanced alternative fuel vehicles and green buildings and products would help American companies innovate.
Stinger said:You didn't know that either eh? Really showing how uniformed you are. It was vote down 95-0 in the Senate under the CLINTON administration.
Al Gore 1993 from "Earth in the Balance""The net effect of all the warming and melting is a steadily rising sea level, almost one inch per decade now, with collateral effects such as the invasion by salt water of freshwater aquifiers in coastal areas and the loss of coastal wetland aquifiers.
"I studied one such area in Louisiana in 1989, Bayou Jean Lafitte, where a strip of land no more than two feet high and five feet wide at places separates the salt water of the rising ocean from the fresh water in one of the most productive breeding grounds in the United States. The next storm surge may breach the barrier and destory the freshwater ecosystem of the bayou.
"The combination of storms and higher sea levels has caused steadily worsening erosion in virtually all coastal areas."
hipsterdufus said:Almost every corporate scandal, whether you're talking about Enron, Parmalat,GlaxoSmithKline or WorldCom has involved massive tax fraud by American Corporations. These companies, and the super rich, set up a little office with a phone in some Island in the Caribbean and save billions in taxes. And you think that's fair? To me it's un-American.
Clinton is the poster boy for the DLC and a major part of the philosophy is fiscal responsibility.
In 1993 the House and Senate passed Clinton's Deficit Reduction Act without a single Republican vote
You can vote for Lieberman before he switches parties.
Any person that disagress with the administration is ostracized, whether it's Richard Clark, Joe Wilson, Paul O'Neil, Eric Shinseki or Larry Lindsay.
I have never said that bombs alone will win the war on terror. That's ridiculous.
I'm impressed with Dem Govenors taking the lead on this issue including Rendell in PA, Schweitzer in Montana along with Sen. Salazar.
The Senate's 95-0 vote you're referring to was not a vote on Kyoto but on a resolution called the Byrd/Hagel Resolution.
Basically this resolution called for renegotiation of the Kyoto Protocol,
but the Busheviks have used this vote to push an agenda ignorant of global climate change.
This lead to Bush rejecting Kyoto in toto in 2001
No maybe the aftermath of Katrina will wake some people up again.
Al Gore 1993 from "Earth in the Balance"
hipsterdufus said:It's "fantasy" world.
Terrorists, murderers and yes, even you Stu should have civil rights
Now that's the smartes thing you've said in years.
The docs were never proven to be forged by Dick Thornburgs investigation into the matter.
You're talking about Fox Limbaugh and associates here right?
We shall see.
Okay, ...PLEASE tell me WHAT CIVIL RIGHTS that have been EXPUNGED from YOU!!
Like I have said, & continue to say...LIBERALS LOVE TO HIDE UNDER "CIVIL RIGHTS" ISSUES THAT ARE SO PHONEY.
Know how many so called "abused" terror prisoners died at Gitmo? I do, ...ZERO, Zilch, Nada...None
At Abu-Ghraib, perhap a few BUT its because THEY generally assaulted their prisoner guards.
Dear liberals, ..please understand,...they are NOT g-damn 'victims', they are MURDERER'S ingrained with radical/fanatical islamo-fascism, & would cut the throats of anybody, ..man, woman, & even child. And in fact did cut the throats of "some" of the female air-line stewardesses of the planes they took over by violence & murder.
The terrorists ARE the enemy, not the American miltary...& until the leftists, & liberals wake up to this fact they continue to live in their own false alternate reality state.
Terror scum such as THIS does NOT deserve to be brought forth in a civilian court, & should NEVER be entreated to the same rights becase THEIR behavior is not normal, its not rational
And..its just like "liberals" who care MORE about the rights of murderer's, rapists, & other criminals, & even terror scum who do not than they DO about REAL victims.
The criminals of the world HIDE under rights issues, & use all the rights & priveleges that America has to offer.
America does not behead, drag the bodies around through the streets, beat, & torment its prisoners, nor execute them because they are not christians...& yet this foul stinking media hints at such things!!
The REAL mainstream voting majority KNOWS exactly HOW, & WHY the media, & the liberals engage in such behavior as outlined above, & knows that it HELPS the modern democratic party, ..& they also know that phoney "rights" issues has ALWAYS been the spring board, & catalyst to democratic party success.
WE might NOT all agree with Mr. Bush on some issues, ..but we sure as hell are NEVER going to empower a party (the democratic party of course) that engages in Blame America first, ..or the party (the democratic party again) that loves to equate islamic terrorism as commensurate with American military behavior, & refuses to make the distinction of WHO the enemy REALLY is!
That disgusting behavior has been the M.O. of the democratic party leadership for decades, ..& it is NOT forgotten!
Think about THAT when election time rolls around!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?