Proof Bush Stole the Election

[Sea Demon]

Well at least you have proven the point that you believe government should be in control to take from those who have, and redistribute to those who don't have. And that is communism. But you see SubSerpent, we live in a free society. And in a society such as that, there are choices one makesin order to determine their quality of life. Sometimes it doesn't always work out, but you do have the choice and freedom to make your life better. You also have the choice and freedom to help those around you in need. Me and my family donate to several causes each year. Including the Special Olympics, US Mission, Catholic Charities, and the Food Bank. Do you do the same? Or do you just whine about how your party is not in power to confiscate people's private property to redstribute as they see fit.

Your worldview is dangerous. Not because of your intentions. But because your worldview has been tried before, and it has always resulted in political persecution and lower standards of living. Despite your good intentions, your destruction of private property rights, which is the foundation of freedom, eventually kills off motivation and chokes innovation. You prefer everyone live in misery equally. My side says give people the freedom to use their God given talents to strive for a better life. And promote generosity as my family does annually. Not trying to toot my own horn, but it's true. But when you start talking of confiscating people's private property, you have proven my points more than I could hope for. Yes, the essence of that is communism.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Well at least you have proven the point that you believe government should be in control to take from those who have, and redistribute to those who don't. And that is communism. But you see SubSerpent. We live in a free society. And in a society such as that, there are choices one makes in order to determine their quality of life. Sometimes it doesn't always work out, but you do have the choice and freedom to make your own life better. You also have the choice and freedom to help those in need around you. And me and my family donate to various causes each year. Including the Special Olympics, the US Mission, Catholic Charities, and the Food Bank. Do you do the same? Or do you just whine that your party is not in power to confiscate people's private property to redistribute around as they see fit.

Your world view is dangerous. Not because of your intentions. But because your world view has been tried before, and it always has resulted in political persecution and low standards of living. Despite your good intentions, your destruction of private property, which is the foundations of freedom, eventually kills off motivation and chokes innovation. You prefer everybody live in misery equally. My side says give people the freedom to use their talents to strive for a better life. And promote generosity as my family demonstrates annually. Not trying to toot my own horn but it's true. But when you start talking about confiscation of private property, you have proven my points more than I hoped to. Yes, the essence of that is communism.

I never said anything about taking away any property. I do agree that we should be paying more out of our paychecks though to give people low cost healthcare, better choices of schools and education, and a paycheck that is worth earning. Your party recklessly spends its money on crap! Why do we need anymore ships or submarines? We have hundreds of them that will never see combat, or the combat that your party wants them to see. The Marine Corps is pointless now! Why not get rid of that branch altogether. We already have an Army. The Navy and the Air Force have been the ones doing the "First in the fight" stuff that the Marine Corps used to brag about. Marines were used for beach landings. To attempt a beach landing today is nothing more than pure suicide and pointless when one missle could clear a beach and then some for the Army to come onto.

Your government is spending money faster than Micheal Jackson at a childerns lap dance contest, and this is money that could be going to much better and more noble causes. But No! Your party's greed doesn't care and you just admitted that in your post by saying that your party doesn't feel the need to give hand outs to people. It's your party that causes the poor and lower middle class to stop spending at your inflated prices - which leads to stock market crashes and depressions because the poor are finally going to say they aren't going to work for you and your company anymore. Once that happens you make no money, the rich make no money, the middle class make no money, and neither do the poor. Prices will then have to drop dramatically because the rich certainly aren't going to spend a lot of money on anything if they aren't making money off the poor people anymore.

You make your party sound more like a club of pompas arrogant jerks by saying you can't be a member unless you make it rich and wealthy somehow!

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by SubSerpent

I never said anything about taking away any property.

Yes you did. Earned money is property. The money in my wallet is my property. And you are openly advocating taking more, and spending as your party sees fit. You are advocating economic slavery.

I do agree that we should be paying more out of our paychecks though to give people

Then do it!

we should be paying more out of our paychecks though to give people low cost healthcare, better choices of schools and education, and a paycheck that is worth earning.

The government has not proven to be able to deliver any product cheaply. Healthcare will be no different. If you want better health care the private sector could do it better. You want better schools? Spending more money is not the answer. What's needed is standards. If only democrats would understand that schools are there to educate kids....not to be a jobs program for adult teachers. Gotta get rid of the teachers unions. And people's paychecks is none of my concern. That is between the employer and the prospective employee.

Your party recklessly spends its money on crap! Why do we need anymore ships or submarines?

And you wonder why the Democrats suck on national security issues. The party platform itself says this.

But No! Your party's greed doesn't care and you just admitted that in your post by saying that your party doesn't feel the need to give hand outs to people. It's your party that causes the poor and lower middle class to stop spending at your inflated prices - which leads to stock market crashes and depressions because the poor are finally going to say they aren't going to work for you and your company anymore. Once that happens you make no money, the rich make no money, the middle class make no money, and neither do the poor. Prices will then have to drop dramatically because the rich certainly aren't going to spend a lot of money on anything if they aren't making money off the poor people anymore.

Rubbish. 27 out of 30 of the most generous states are Republican in charitable giving. 17 out of the 20 least generous states are Democrat states. And no, I don't want to just give handouts to people. I'd rather create opportunities for people with a better performing economy. I'd rather raise people up to a better standard. Some people fall on hard times, true. I have myself at times. But in a free society you have the responsibility to get back up and pull your own weight.

And what are you talking about with "inflated prices"? Prices have never been lower on consumer goods. Even gasoline is coming down. You have never taken an economics course and it shows.

You make your party sound more like a club of pompas arrogant jerks by saying you can't be a member unless you make it rich and wealthy somehow!

Nope. Never said that. But it's nice to pursue better opportunities for yourself and your family. If you have a family, it's stupid and irresponsible not to.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Yes you did. Earned money is property. The money in my wallet is my property. And you are openly advocating taking more, and spending as your party sees fit. You are advocating economic slavery.

Then do it!

The government has not proven to be able to deliver any product cheaply. Healthcare will be no different. If you want better health care the private sector could do it better. You want better schools? Spending more money is not the answer. What's needed is standards. If only democrats would understand that schools are there to educate kids....not to be a jobs program for adult teachers. Gotta get rid of the teachers unions. And people's paychecks is none of my concern. That is between the employer and the prospective employee.

And you wonder why the Democrats suck on national security issues. The party platform itself says this.

Rubbish. 27 out of 30 of the most generous states are Republican in charitable giving. 17 out of the 20 least generous states are Democrat states. And no, I don't want to just give handouts to people. I'd rather create opportunities for people with a better performing economy. I'd rather raise people up to a better standard. Some people fall on hard times, true. I have myself at times. But in a free society you have the responsibility to get back up and pull your own weight.

And what are you talking about with "inflated prices"? Prices have never been lower on consumer goods. Even gasoline is coming down. You have never taken an economics course and it shows.

Nope. Never said that. But it's nice to pursue better opportunities for yourself and your family. If you have a family, it's stupid and irresponsible not to.

Nobody said the US school system was perfect.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Nobody said the US school system was perfect.

Well, I'm not knocking it in it's entirety, but I have someone here spouting that he wants to open up my wallet to improve the public schools. And I'm saying the issue is not always money. There are of course excellent teachers and good public schools out there. I was generalizing for the sake of brevity.

[The Avon Lady]

All one has to do is step back and take a good look at this thread and the nonsense spewed here to understand which direction the Democratic party has been and is heading to.

Suggested reading: The Shadow Party, Part I and Part II.

Much is very similar to what has happened to Israel's leftist labor party, now a shell of it's former self, with much thanks to overseas leftists and their funding pols and agendas that the rest of us cannot stomach.

[bradclark1]

Yes, it's difficult isn't it? But I find it interesting that those who critisize the Bush administration have no answers themselves. They do nothing but critisize and offer no alternatives short of full surrender. No Thanks.

Funny that you didn't answer the questions. So whats it worth?
Because one doesn't have the answer doesn't make one blind, dumb or stupid. What isn't working isn't working.

News Flash:
It was just on the news that the NATO commander is asking for more troops and quickly for Afganistan. They are loosing towns to the Taliban. The candle is burning on both ends. Whats the answer?

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Funny that you didn't answer the questions. So whats it worth?
Because one doesn't have the answer doesn't make one blind, dumb or stupid. What isn't working isn't working.

News Flash:
It was just on the news that the NATO commander is asking for more troops and quickly for Afganistan. They are loosing towns to the Taliban. The candle is burning on both ends. Whats the answer?

Hmmm. OK I'll go back to your original post and answer your questions.

.......

OK, back

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Are we dumba$$es or what?

Well, I usually don't like to resort to name calling as that is the lowest common denominator of debate. But I will say that it is very stupid to hamper your own nation in a time of war....since you and your kids have to live there. I think it's stupid to ignore threats and give terrorists time to flourish. I believe it's stupid to put politics ahead of the national security of your country.

Originally Posted by bradclark1

While Bush in Crawford grilling steaks with his good ole boy's our guys will still be dying. Isn't that swell.

No, it's not swell that our guys are dying. But I thank them for their service and sacrifices. And I refuse to spit on their service. The thing is, I don't look at what they're doing as trivial as what you do.

On your last statement on this most recent of your posts (see above), The answer is to give them the resources to do the job. But I'm sure you would prefer unconditional surrender, eh?

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Hmmm. OK I'll go back to your original post and answer your questions.

.......

OK, back

Well, I usually don't like to resort to name calling as that is the lowest common denominator of debate. But I will say that it is very stupid to hamper your own nation in a time of war....since you and your kids have to live there. I think it's stupid to ignore threats and give terrorists time to flourish. I believe it's stupid to put politics ahead of the national security of your country.

No, it's not swell that our guys are dying. But I thank them for their service and sacrifices. And I refuse to spit on their service. The thing is, I don't look at what they're doing as trivial as what you do.

On your last statement on this most recent of your posts (see above), The answer is to give them the resources to do the job. But I'm sure you would prefer unconditional surrender, eh?

And I think it's "stupid" that people actually think that the US is capable of abolishing ALL terrorism from the world. Are we not going to leave Iraq until all forms of terrorism have been completely eradicated? There's even cyber terrorism...Does this mean that all website owners are "harboring" terrorist? Should G.W. send troops to Neals server to blow it up? Perhaps G.W. and his wasteful spending would rather do it with a $1,000,000.00 Tomahawk cruise missle instead just for the extra fireworks display that it would cause? Does this mean that Bill Gates is the head honcho since his operating systems tend to make up the bulk of the worlds Internet servers? Is there proof enough that Bill Gates means to take over the world with his operating systems just in the same manner that Osama Bin Laden means to do it with his bombs and guns?

The fact is terrorism comes in all different shapes and forms, and for Bush to say that he aint gonna leave Iraq until it's been completely destroyed means that the US is gonna be in Iraq for a pretty long damn while apparently. I like how someone else mentioned earlier that the Iraqis' didn't become terrorist until AFTER they had been invaded by American forces. That is the absolute truth!

This whole war is nothing more than another Whitehouse scandal pent up on nothing more than sheer rage against Iraqi people and Sadaam for disrespecting G.W. Bush's dad and threatening his life. Bush knew exactly what to do once Al Queda struck New York (and there's proof that Bush knew that the 9/11 attack was going to happen, yet he did nothing to try and stop it:hmm: ).

I'll bet Bush was thankful about 9/11. This was his BIG chance, his BIG break, to finish off Iraq once and for all. It was time for him to show daddy that he was now a man.

Just the fact that Bush new that 9/11 was or could happen and did nothing about it means that he commited a major derelicition of duty which in some cases is punishable by death. I know all those times that if I had fallen asleep on watch or did nothing to make my shipmates aware that the ship and their lives were in danger from an enemy I could be sentenced to death. It's in the UCMJ, and if the president is the "Commander and Chief" of the military he needs to be tried like every other service member that has done the same thing (dereliction of duty).

Why does the Captain of the USS Cole have to suffer for an enemy attack that happened on his watch, but not Bush? What a double standard in it's purest form. The Cole Captain lost 17 crewmen, Bush lost thousands. The leader of any platform is ALWAYS suppose to be the one to take the blame, ALWAYS! A Captain is suppose to go down with his crew. Bush let those people die on 9/11 and he had the power to try and prevent it, and didn't. He didn't even have an extra cop on duty that day just for minimal extra protection. That is why I can't ever believe a thing the man says, that is why I won't ever believe what the mans says. That is why I don't support him, and that is why I will never support him.

I hope and pray for a Democratic government once again in office. Hillary Clinton would be who I'd vote for! She's got more ballz than Bush and her husband combined!

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by SubSerpent

And I think it's "stupid" that people actually think that the US is capable of abolishing ALL terrorism from the world. Are we not going to leave Iraq until all forms of terrorism has been completely eradicated.

You're totally confused. Do you actually listen to what President Bush says, or do you just say what feels good to support your irrational hatred? President Bush has said that we will remain until Iraq is stable and is able to provide it's own security. I really don't think you liberal types are very good listeners.

There even cyber terrorism...Does this mean that all website owners are "harboring" terrorist. Should G.W. send troops to Neals server to blow it up. Perhaps G.W. and his wasteful spending would rather do it with a $1,000,000.00 Tomahawk cruise missle instead just for the extra fireworks display that it would cause? Does this mean that Bill Gates is the head honcho since his operating systems tend to make up the bulk of the worlds? Is the proof enough that Bill Gates means to take over the world with his operating systems just in the same manner that Osama Bin Laden means to do it with his bombs and guns?

OK. This sounds like a 12 year old fantasy.

The fact is terrorism comes in all different kinds of shapes and forms, and for Bush to say that he aint gonna leave Iraq until it's been completely destroyed means that the US is gonna be in Iraq for a pretty long damn while apparently. I like how someone else mentioned earlier that the Iraqis' didn't become terrorist until AFTER they had been invaded by American forces. That is the absolute truth!

You're correct. Terrorism is going to be around a long time. But yes, Bush is right, it must be confronted. And yeah, we might be in Iraq for a while. It would be nice if Democrats would join us in fighting terrorists rather than fighting against our own nation.

You do realize that many terrorists being killed or captured by U.S. troops in Iraq aren't even Iraqi nationals, right?

This whole war is nothing more than another Whitehouse scandal pent up on nothing more than sheer rage against Iraqi people and Sadaam for disrespecting G.W. Bush's dad and threatening his life. Bush knew exactly what to do once Al Queda struck New York (and there's proof that Bush knew that the 9/11 attack was going to happen, yet he did nothing to try and stop it:hmm: ).

I'll bet Bush was thankful about 9/11. This was his BIG chance, his BIG break, to finish off Iraq once and for all. It was time for him to show daddy that he was now a man.

Just the fact that Bush new that 9/11 was or could happen and did nothing about it means that he commited a major derelicition to duty which in some cases is punishable by death.

I love watching Democrats push this crap. Al Qaeda thanks you for working for their propaganda machine. I'm sure they'll give you a medal for it. :hmm:

[August]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

I love watching Democrats push this crap. Al Qaeda thanks you for working for their propaganda machine. I'm sure they'll give you a medal for it. :hmm:

More to the point every time he posts one of these irrational diatrabes, it's like an advertisement to vote Republican.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by SubSerpent

Maybe if that happened and the greed of most republicans came to an end this world we live in would be a better place.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Do you do the same? Or do you just whine that your party is not in power to confiscate people's private property to redistribute around as they see fit.

Looks like this link answers some of this greed stuff.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...sity_inde.html

Just in case you're lazy, this is a sourced generosity index. It's a study done of who gives to charities. 27 out of 30 of the most generous are Republican states. 17 out of 20 of the least generous states are Democrat Blue states.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

and the Food Bank. .

Man, I am in tears.

[bradclark1]

I believe republicans do that because Clinton was twice the president then Bush is.
That just my opinion however.

During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare rolls. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination.
After the failure in his second year of a huge program of health care reform, Clinton shifted emphasis, declaring "the era of big government is over." He sought legislation to upgrade education, to protect jobs of parents who must care for sick children, to restrict handgun sales, and to strengthen environmental rules.

In the world, he successfully dispatched peace keeping forces to war-torn Bosnia and bombed Iraq when Saddam Hussein stopped United Nations inspections for evidence of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. He became a global proponent for an expanded NATO, more open international trade, and a worldwide campaign against drug trafficking. He drew huge crowds when he traveled through South America, Europe, Russia, Africa, and China, advocating U.S. style freedom.

or read it here http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

I believe republicans do that because Clinton was twice the president then Bush is.
That just my opinion however.

or read it here http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

They left out the fact that it takes 8 years for a presidents policy to affect things like that. So for economy to housing, that was either Bush or Regan's policies that affected that. Right now, we have an OK economy, and that is the result of Mr. Clinton. So he did OK. I like how even Bush claims this is his doing, as has every pres before him including Clinton, but it is really not. Only when Bush leaves office will we begin to see the results of his policy on the long term economy.

-S