"Before I begin ripping your quotes apart, I will concur with your dad about just how challenging you are to debate."
Thank you. You are as well.
"So while I know I am not a significant relationship in your life, I would like to caution you to ensure that your ideals never interfere with relationships, which will be part of you long after any political party or candidate has moved on."
Though he went Kerry in the last election due largely to the Iraq situation, my boyfriend is a Clinton hating, Bush 2000 voting, gun lover who can understand the voodoo that makes cars work, so I'm already taking your advice.
On this last election, I do confess a "holy shit" feeling due not to Bush 'stealing' an election, which would be comforting, but due to the fact that he didn't. This hasn't really swayed my relationships given its occurence ten days ago, but I do have plenty of friends, generally who started as debate partners, who are fundamentalist Christians who've battled me on gays, abortion, and/or creationism. As an anthropology major, really creationism is the easiest way to get me worked up.
"Good then we agree that Kerry had radicals in his periphery as well as Bush."
I live in California. You think I haven't seen left wing radicals? They likely piss me off more than you because they don't snarl up your traffic endlessly preaching to the choir. Forget Michael Moore. Once you sit parked on I-5 for an hour and a half so that protestors can convince tired, employed liberal people to vote against Bush, you do start to feel a temptation to vote Buchanan.
"Well, not all lies are about numbers."
Those are the easiest to out as lies. Once you get away from the numbers, it becomes spin.
"Second, I think even you agreed about the spin available from most media organizations. They pretty much gave Kerry a pass in my view."
Really? I saw equal representation... not from one news organization, don't get me wrong. But channel surf and you get the biased conservative media nailing Kerry and channel surf more and you get the biased liberal media nailing Bush. Oh, and Dick Cheney apparently has a lesbian daughter.
"He told a lot of lies. SS, Draft, Tax Cuts, Iraq. You name it, Kerry lied about it. If lies dont equal hate, what does?"
I hate to sound like Clinton, but it depends on what you mean by lie. I saw Kerry put a spin on the data. I saw Bush put a spin on the data. I saw both sides screwing up the data. On the backdoor draft, I don't like screwing people on the fine print. I know it's legal, but I don't like it. Referring to it doesn't make it a "lie", it makes it a spun position.
And Bush lies? Government run health care, more taxes on the middle class? I'm sure you don't feel those are lies, but I can provide the same "spun" evidence that you can for Kerry's "lies".
Policy spin I accept, though dislike. Namecalling in a political campaign is simply immature and hateful, as is dragging up issues for no reason. I know I've mentioned this, but I really saw the Cheney's daughter thing as being that way. It was not a lie in the least, but it was nastier behavior than party spinning.
""Republicans tend to treat people who break from party lines as hideous blasphemers" Zel Miller!!!!!"
Uhh... there's breaking party lines and there's challenging people to a duel.
"Uh, no we didn't. Iraq was a viable threat to the United States with or without stockpiles of WMD."
"If you don't know that, than do a little historical research..."
Done some. America really needs to stop this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" stuff. And no, I'm not blaming that on Bush.
"He had WMD, he has used WMD and even if he didn't have WMD,"
Uh... he had WMDs that we helped supply... but apparently, not anymore.
"he could certainly make WMD as soon as he relieved himself of the UN sanctions, which he paid the French, Germans and Russians to accomodate with the corrupt oil for food program."
Why not simply keep the ones he had? Also, Saddam... evil man, not terminally stupid one. Developing the WMDs, getting a delivery system, getting the US, even if successful, would lead to the complete obliteration of his rule. We've done that NOW, and I am not suggesting waiting until another attack. What I am suggesting is that Saddam, again, not a stupid man, and also not a devoutly religious man, knew this. What would he stand to gain by this? He saw how pissed off we got when he invaded a country that prior to his invasion, probably 80% of the US couldn't find on a map, and he's going to develop WMDs to send off at us?
"Add the documented terrorist ties and you have a recipe for disaster."
How do the ties compare to those with Saudi Arabia and other countries in that region? Considering the number of terrorists and camps stemming from Saudi Arabia and the anti-Christian, anti-Americanism there actively encouraged, I'm a little more concerned about them. They are also a far more fundamentalist country.
I'm not saying bomb Saudi Arabia, but if we want to fight terror, maybe we should try doing SOMETHING with the place that seems to be a never ending supply of terrorists, training, and weapons.
"Here is a list of countries that support the war: Hardly seems like "world" condemnation."
With Eritrea involved, we can't lose! Sorry. It is a long list until you examine public sentiment and the relative contributions made by each supporter. Polls reflecting world opinion are drastically put against us. Though the UK is one of our supporters, the sentiment of the UK, including the majority of their government, is incredibly negative. Tony Blair is called "Bush's poodle", he's faced intense criticism by his own people (and they do have some all out brawls), so we can't really claim much support there. Other countries are on the list and have contributed NOTHING in the way of funds or troops. In many cases, the people either don't support the war or are completely uninterested in it. I'm betting that includes a big part of Eritrea.
"I say EXCELLENT! We can fight them with our military instead of having them plotting attacks on innocent civilians."
It's not having them move to a single location which disturbs me, and by all means, I hope they would. It's the "increased recruitment" that troubles me. The 9/11 attacks were highly organized, but they didn't have to be. It was not a high tech, WMD assault. More terrorists means more chance one of them gets through. More world sympathy for terrorists means less help. Look at the damage McVeigh did as one guy.
"Uh not exactly! We have success stories in agriculture, airports, bridges and roads, community action programs, economic growth, education, electricity, food security, health care, local governance, seaports, telecommunications, transition initiatives, water & sanitation and more! The Iraqi's are now fighting side by side with the allied forces to dislodge the insurgents and their first elections are imminent!"
Uhhh... Attacks are raging. It did not turn out to be a nation that was simply Saddam over a poor oppressed people, as it was presented. Innocent people are dying. In Fallujah they did make an effort to get the civilians out before they stormed the place, but thousands of Iraqis are dead.
Unemployment in Iraq is at an all time high, worse than under Saddam's regime! Some of the 'success' in feeding people is based on an infrastructure set up by his regime. We are trying to get Iraqis to work beside us, and many are. They're getting picked off in droves. Being an Iraqi police officer has to be more dangerous than being an oil rig firefighter, but it has become their duty to take on the danger now because we decided they needed liberating?
I also think we are demonizing Saddam to a point that we were ignoring structures in his country that were already there. A great number of Iraqis already had electricity. Our 'success' is finally getting their power back on after we bombed them. There were bridges, roads, museums and schools there already, and in the schools women were even allowed to attend them! Many times we act like Iraq was bare deserts with nothing, and then Saddam's palaces. Not so. Iraq had a fairly developed society going with the unfortunate trait of being under a brutal dictator.
"Yes there are many casualties, however anyone who expected to undertake this challenge without casualties was naive."
Didn't. Many who supported the war said it was going to be easy. I am not saying you are one or anything, but I MET people. I also met people who into the war said "Please! It's successful, only a hundred soldiers have died!"
"But to suggest that things are going badly is to deny our troops the credit they deserve for so many accomplishments!"
Ohhh no. Badly doesn't mean they haven't taken most of the country or that the troops haven't done a commendable job.
Largely, I mean (should have been) badly for the Bush camp.
1. No WMDs
2. No links to Al Qaeda
3. Prisoner abuse scandals followed by documentations showing really shady dealings surrounding the administration's position on torture and the Geneva convention. Granted, the most damning stuff appeared to be Rumsfeld, not Bush, though when Bush started talking about enemy combatants not qualifying under the Geneva Convention, things got scary.
4. Loss of the weapons
5. No decrease in attacks, and targeting of Iraqi police force.
This doesn't mean whether we're kicking the country's butt is in question. But we're stuck in this for the long haul because he screwed up. I'm not saying it's good to bomb people and then leave, but with no weapons or ties, and our new 'liberation' motive, we have to stay as long as it takes. We can't just pack up.
"Do you really think that the terrorists are planning to storm our beaches?"
Nope. I think they're planning to attack on a lot of fronts because it only takes one to take down a building. I'm all for getting the heads of the organizations. I am not for inspiring suicide bombers.
"What can 40,000 troops do to stop a terrorists who smuggles a bomb into a crowded train station?"
Be available. If we don't need a National Guard, why do we have one?
"If Kerry committed these "crimes", should he be made to answer for them and if he didn't, he must have been lying. You can't have it both ways. You pick!"
Kerry Senate Testimony (1971)"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
He goes onto describe the stories of chopping off ears and such, which is one of the things misrepresented by the Swift Boat Veterans... then
"...1971 NBC "Meet the Press" interview that he had personally engaged in "atrocities" like "thousands of others" who engaged in shootings in free-fire zones. He said then that he considered the officials who set such war policies to be "war criminals."
Are the shootings in the free-fire zones the crimes you are referring to, or were you referring to what the SBV were saying in their ad where they clipped: "They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads..." from the Testimony vs. putting it in the correct context?
"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads..." This refers to statements made by those 150 men which Kerry seems to have fully believed. This is not the story the Swift Boat Veterans tell. Instead, we have Kerry as Fonda, but he had a gun.
"Go back and tell that to the POW's whose imprisonment and torture was extended by Kerry's testimony before the Senate."
Tell it to the 150 who testified in Detroit months prior to that.
"Tell that to the scores of soldiers returning home who were spat on because of the organized effort to portray them all as "baby killers" by people like Kerry."
The actions of a few helped portray this image as the actions were made public. Kerry was not (like Fonda) calling them baby killers and was critical more of the commands.
"including the ones on KERRY'S boat, support him." That would be 3 to be exact. Seems everyone else including every one of his commanders feels that he is not qualified.
The statements I've read seem quite favorable. Sources?
"No we don't but the actions of a few don't define the whole."
No, but they shouldn't be hidden either.
"Kerry fabricated his atrocities and characterized them as US policy and WHY? Because he wanted to be President!"
Fabricated? Which ones? By the way, 2004 Meet the Press: "I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive."
Had he been doing the Jane Fonda thing, I'd say tough. However, as a veteran, as someone angry, and in a political climate where anger was prominent, this is pretty likely. Fabricating stuff isn't okay, but it doesn't look like he did. Being angry is another matter. There was a LOT of anger surrounding Vietnam. To me, those sentiments seem pretty typical of one waxing on their youth. Your comments to me would indicate you understand this trend?
"Bush never claimed to have won the war."
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. (Before Saddam was even caught, by the way)
They also tried to sell us on the idea of an easy war. Obviously, such a thing doesn't exist, but they tried to push it. This Meet the Press from March 2003 is almost cute:
Cheney: "Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
RUSSERT: "If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"
Cheney: "Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators...The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."
One could say that some Iraqis greet us as liberators, though with less enthusiasm then they did when we first rolled in with big promises, but I'm sure you can gather from the context of that conversation that Cheney wasn't saying "Well, some will support us... others... will make this hell". In case we could question his intent, Russert goes out and asks the vital question.
"and he made our reasons very clear."
1. WMDs. Nope
2. Links to Al Qaeda. Nothing yet.
3. Freeing the Iraqi people... depends on which ones you ask.
"So where are Bush's lies?"
Uhh, the one about Saddam posing an imminent threat to the United States was a big one. The uranium whopper wasn't actually (I don't believe) a lie, and the British believed it too, but that was a huge d'oh!
"You admit that there were intelligence failures and yet you maintain that there was lies. Interesting. If there were intelligence failures as you claim, why is it not a reasonable conclusion that Bush was simply acting on what he felt to be true at the time."
If you say you have a concrete case for invading Iraq based on solid intelligence, and you don't, that could be considered a lie. Now it's also fair to say he's being misled by false intelligence, though aren't there supposed to be checks in place against this sort of thing?
So intelligence failures revealed all around, but then he maintains we were right in going into Iraq and we had good reason to go in. To me, that's a lie. Incompetence in intelligence gathering is not a good reason.
"So with virtually every notable intelligence service concluding the same thing, Bush acted and ithe information turned out to be wrong."
They were still giving the weapons inspectors more time and did not initiate action. You need very strong evidence for a pre-emptive war. It's not about which countries had intelligence reports. It's about which one led the assault based on incomplete data.
And considering some of the pre 9/11 stuff, it doesn't sound like Bush was blameless in intelligence failures. I know people in the CIA are mighty pissed at some stuff they told him, it wasn't acted on, and they still took the heat for it.
"But somehow, Bush was supposed to know they all had it wrong right?"
Yup. Before you bomb a country, you need to know. Thousands of people are dead. That is a significant mistake. Except it wasn't a mistake. He doesn't make mistakes.
"In case you don't know, Bush had many reasons to go into Iraq. the reason he pinned it on WMD was because at that time, it was agreed by EVERYONE!"
I thought it was BS at the time, though everyone kept calling me an idiot for it. I figured the Weapons Inspectors would have found more, and again, that whole "Saddam has a lot to lose, and that would the equavalent of a high level suicide bombing".
"A political miscalculation to be sure, but not a lie and not a mistake."
Well, to the rest of us, it looks like he is... flip flopping?
"If you don't want to do the research, answer this. When has Kerry EVER voted for a tax cut in 20 years in the Senate?"
"But in fact, Kerry has not voted 350 times for tax increases, something Bush campaign officials have falsely accused Kerry of on several occasions. On close examination, the Bush campaign’s list of Kerry’s votes for “higher taxes” is padded. It includes votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged (when Republicans proposed cuts), and even votes in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts that Bush aides characterized as “watered down.”"
"So I tell you that Kerry voted against every major weapons system now used in modern combat."
He voted against strategic nuclear weapons like the B-2. Horrors. Same ones that Bush Sr. ceased production on while putting forward his plan to reduce military spending.
I'm not saying that Bush Sr. was anti-military. I'm saying that if Kerry is anti-military, then you also have to paint the Republicans who voted or proposed the same way into that corner.
"I say all this to suggest that Kerry is anti-military"
So are Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney? Then why the votes to increase military spending consistently since 97?
"and you give me the AH-64 Apache helicopter???"
You missed the point. Many of the cuts to these programs were ones supported by the Republicans themselves, including Dick Cheney for the Apache helicopter. Their "anti-miliary" claims mainly revolve around 1990 and 1995 Pentagon appropriations bill. Surely you recognize the magnitude of these documents?
"Well I guess that makes war crimes ok. But we know he didn't actually commit them don't we?"
Firing rounds in the fire free zone?
"The public was incited against the war because of people like Kerry who lied to fuel their fantasies."
People like Kerry had their 'fantasies' fueled by people like the 150 people mentioned?
"Well can they criticize their post-war actions?????"
Sure, if they're willing to read all the documentation rather than just the pieces the Swift Boat Veterans pulled out.
"Funny because you have mentioned it several times to demean Bush."
I don't like chickenhawks. It's not that he didn't fight. It's that he didn't fight, tore apart John Kerry for being there, now wants to 'play soldier' while gambling with other people's lives and is making decisions to do things to people that are merely "fulfilling their contractual agreement" which would have sparked his run to Canada had they been instituted in Vietnam.
"I don't know where you get your "news" and I don't care."
You should care. You have repeatedly assumed that I get them from left wing sources, including insulting me with the moveon.org stuff.
"You have no arguments that I haven't dealt with on a dozen or so blog sites that I frequent."
Likewise on your end, Robert. Developing opinions similar to people who share my position may be based upon a similar viewing of the facts. This is, without a doubt, influenced by our OWN perceptions, but assuming that it must have come out of a liberal rag is insulting.
"but you don't have a unique perspective on American politics any more than I do."
Never claimed to. If I thought I had a unique perspective, the results of the elections would not have left me feeling the way I did.
"I would suggest that the party has been taken over by ultra-liberals but you seem to be one of them so I don't know if you would agree."
Define "ultra-liberal" so I know whether to be offended. The fact that I am a capitalist, pro death penalty gun owner with a low tolerance for welfare fraud seems to make the ultra liberals think I'm not ultra-liberal.
"IMO the democrats will perform better when they at least APPEAR to come back to the center like Clinton."
Did you just say something positive about Clinton? You're getting kicked out of the association for that one.
I don't know where the center is anymore. I felt 'center' during the Clinton years (those where I was concerned with more than boys and school) I do not like the polarization and would favor a country more united. Do you feel Bush is a 'uniter'? Because that hasn't been the impression I've gotten.
On the civil rights issues, depending on where the middle is, I suppose there I am swung way to the left. I believe strongly in church/state separation, believe in upholding the Constitution (including the 2nd AND 4th Amendments), and pretty much figure that if it doesn't directly concern other people, it isn't any of their business as far as moral issues go.
On economics, I'll go either way. I am not anti tax cuts, by the way. I felt the timing on this one was not good.
"No, you embrace the stereotype when you suggest that an argument can be made that the 9/11 attacks were preemptive for the terrorists."
I try to look at things from the perspective of others even when such things are distasteful. My tendency to do this regarding the Holocaust has caused some people to miscast me as thinking Hitler was a good guy.
Terrorists=BAD!!! is a useless way of looking at things. When you so demonize your enemy that you cannot understand their logic, you will fail to see what's coming. It may feel good to be the prevaling good against the forces of inconceivable darkness, but this tendency will tend to get the crap bombed out of you when the inconceivable darkness does something logically consistent rather than cackling and chewing babies.
"I say that's nonsense! No reasonable person can make that argument!"
Define reasonable. From the perspective I described, it upholds a certain kind of logic very effective in recruiting terrorists. Terrorist recruitment is up. By bombing us and causing us to rally the troops, Osama bin Laden, whether he meant to or not, led to a very real fear by much of the Muslim world that we are waging a holy war. The fact that we then attacked the fairly secular Iraq (comparatively) without solid cause simply shows them no one is safe.
"This was meant to imply that certain liberals are 'America haters' NOT that all liberals hate America."
The stereotype of the America hating liberal is a common one, you must admit.
"Anyone making this argument, to me, hates America."
Anyone seriously considering the 9/11 attacks justified, I would say. I do not think they were justified. I think that when we bomb Iraq for posing a nebulous threat to us makes a case for them to rally people by saying they bombed us because we posed a threat to them. One of bin Laden's early claims was that he was bringing the war on the Muslim world out into the open. So we said "Are not!" and attacked Iraq. Great.
"So I guess you agree with me that there is no argument to be made that their attack was preemptive."
Nope, not at all... I consider such attacks to be terrorism... which means what we did...
"Whose civil rights were violated?? And please don't tell me Jose Padilla. Do you have another drum to pound?"
Uhh... Ashcroft was overturning the 4th Amendment quite a while ago, though he got blockaded when he wanted to base arrests on illegal search and seizure rather than just performance of things. The civil rights of people were violated when they were detained indefinitely without arrest, charges made, or rights afforded to them. That is not a solitary incident. People have also gotten this at airports for no reason, and have been detained for hours, drilled, denied contact with their family, etc, without being told why.
"But of course, they were all voting their conscience right?"
Conscience? Please. I may be young, but I'm not naive. A combination of financial interests within Iraq and a likely desire not to engage in a long, bloody, costly war over something that could turn sour. Lucky them.
"Now we occupy them, appoint our people, and we're not leaving." Allawi is "our people"??"
Appoint the people we approve. It would not do to have us leave after instituting a perfect little American democracy and have the people choose a fundamentalist extremist as a leader, would it?
"Do you actually believe that Bush has empirical aspiration in Iraq?"
I think Bush has the aspiration of making Iraq a "friendly" nation that is a stronghold of democracy in the Middle East that will show the beauty of American ways. This may sound very nice in the wonderful world of magical pixies, but I don't think it will pan out well.
"What did Iraq do? NOTHING." Well ,not exactly. They invaded a country, surrendered and agreed to terms which they violated."
So did Germany. When was the last time we bombed them? What I mean was that Iraq was not doing anything to warrant our actions in there, but we did it anyway.
"Offered bountied to familes of suicide bombers."
Once we were invading them, yeah. Suicide bombers are kind of a last resort when you don't have those WMDs to use.
"Filled mass graves. Kept torture and rape chambers active and violated every human right imaginable."
Question on this last one. Do you favor invasion of every country with these traits? Because I am strongly against this kind of crap but also realize that if we try and get everyone doing it, we're going to be a third world country.
"Of course he publically denouced them as radical muslims, but in secret he recognized their mutual hatred of America and he colluded with them."
Source? Besides, I'm not discounting a willingness by Saddam to make connections. I am discounting a willingness by fundamentalist Muslims to trust a wine swilling, cigar smoking bastion of secular immorality.
"No creating more dead desperate people fixes this."
Uhh... no... this causes the problem. Revenge for killed family members is a big suicide bombing motive. If you think that's stupid, try talking to people right after they've had a child murdered.
"Well gee, if the Boston Globe characterizes those volunteers as the RNC, it must be true!!!"
Do you have an argument to support why they weren't, or were you hoping I wouldn't notice? You painted this as isolated incidents with the Bush camp when simply watching him speak publically reveals his distate for being questioned.
"But let me tell you something that I know PERSONALLY."
Don't take this the wrong way; it's something I picked up in school, but I generally will trust a newspaper over a "trust me" story over the internet.
"When Kerry met in Pittsburgh to announce his running mate, I tried to get in and I was thwarted."
When I've tried to see Republican speakers, I've been thwarted. You might see this as being their attempt to silence my voice except for the fact that I was thwarted because the attendence was full already. I could be a dissenter, but a dissenter willing to spend the night on the curb. ;)
"Kerry had hundreds of people bussed in and everyone else was kept out!"
Bush did this repeatedly. When dissenters have been at Kerry rallies and speeches, unless they are preventing him from speaking, I have seen them allowed to wave Bush signs, chant stuff, etc. At Bush rallies, dissenters who get in are generally escorted out quickly. Dissent includes wearing anti-Bush sloganry.
"If it was true, this would have happened all over the country!"
Refusal by Bush to have criticism in his public appearences was all over the country. In his rare press conferences, you could also tell he took exceptional offense to having his policies questioned.
"So my question remains. What would Kerry do if protecting the US meant action that he could not justify to the world?"
Ask him... and then give me a scenario in which this would happen.
"From his statements, I can only conclude that he would do nothing!"
From his statements, you actually conclude that he would because of his promise to protect the US. Whether or not he would stand by it is another issue entirely, but his WORDS did not lead to your conclusions, nor to those perp'd by Condy's attempts to play dumb.
"So what should an American do when our interest conflict with the world???"
Give me a situation.
"This isn't accurate. The administration had claimed and continues to claim that there is a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, not 9/11."
You're right on the 9/11 thing. That's the opinion of voters, not government, and I apologize (sincerely). On Al Qaeda, they flip flop. Colin Powell or Rumsfeld will say there's no connection, there will be a hurried fluttery few hours and then they'll come back a little paler and say that's not what they meant.
""I am NOT, by the way, calling conservatives stupid. I am calling a vast percentage of them uninformed" Funny I feel the same way about democrats."
You cut the part where I said that.
"But the real question is this. Why, historically does large voter turnout favor democrats?"
Because they can actually drag my age group away from the Playstation II long enough to vote? Long lines in this one though, so forget it. San Andreas isn't going to shoot up itself.
By the way, if you can't tell, I'm agitated with my peers. I saw how riled up they were, but then vote? Nah. Why? Had a date. ARGH!!!! THEN they got pissed Bush won.
"Compare the actual "break" and then come back and tell me again how Bush's tax break only benefited the rich."
Had this been my claim, I wouldn't. My claim was favored the rich MORE.
"Bush is setting more reasonable time frames for companies to adhere to the overzealous restrictions."
"He does this to keep the doors open on companies that may close. This is one way to foster jobs!"
I agree, but giving them benefits to stay if it involves screwing our air and water also doesn't fly.
"Hundreds of manufacturing firms simply said "fuck it, it's too expensive" and moved their operation overseas. This is exactly what we don't want to happen."
Agreed. Unfortunately, one major factor is labor costs, and we aren't going to lower that enough to inspire people. That's not a Bush criticism by the way. Americans aren't going to work for fifty cents a day.
"Anyone who just lost a job will qualify for at least 6 months of unemplyment."
Aware of that.
"Add to that a host of other welfare and social programs."
Most aren't going to apply to the situation I have described.
"And yes, people can scrape by with minimum wage until they find a better job. But this isn't happening nearly as much as you claim."
It may be happening more often than you claim.
"Yes it would and I hope like hell that doesn't happen to anybody. But before I start forking over your tax dollars, I would want to make sure they did everything to help themsleves first!"
I agree. I am not for people sitting on welfare.
"The problem with most liberals is that they feel that everything bad that can possibly happen requires a government solution. "You're out of a job??? Well, here's a check!""
Hell, no. My boyfriend's ex sits on welfare... endlessly, she goes out to dinner, she has no bills because she lives with her parents (at 36). My taxes are taking care of her very nicely. Even paying for her diabetes medications and treatments because she has type II diabetes, won't stop eating, and weighs 300 lbs.
I am sympathetic to people in genuine in trouble and I am concerned about our own system because when these people get into trouble, they end up costing us money ANYWAY.
"Really? Than tell me please how so many people do it? I know many people who are self employed middle class that buy their own insurance."
Me too. Most of them are not smokers with pre-existing conditions. When I was checking out Kaiser, which is still rich for my blood, I looked at their rate plans for people in their fifties smoker/nonsmoker. Holy crap!
"If you want government to start providing everything that is difficult, forget about paying down the deficit."
Didn't say that. I also didn't say my answer to these problems was "cut a check", did I? Creation of jobs is far more important than paying someone, particularly with the way welfare tends to rope people into not working.
"Also, were you aware that hospitals are required to provide emergency health care to anyone?"
Trained as an EMT? Yes. This is part of the problem. We do not leave uninsured people to do. Uninsured people cannot pay hospital bills.. they just can't. In the unlikely event now I have a massive heart attack, the state's getting the bill. I'm not going to have 40 grand to blow for a while. So they become a drain on the system. Health care reforms that make health care more affordable help reduce this. I do not want health care merely handed out. I want it more accessable.
"No, don't have a pitchfork, but don't pretend that politics started when you decided that you were interested."
I don't. I expressed a personal problem with the deficit. You laughed and said liberals did that sort of thing. Understand the offense?
"I suppose that the increase in jobs over 19 months doesn't indicate an improving economy to you? Or the low unemployment? Or highest home ownership? Or stock market?"
What reports are you reading? We had major drops, stagnation with wavers up and down for a while, creation of the new "military" jobs supposedly had from people put on active duty, and then little until a major rush of jobs in October.
"No, none of that matters to you because you hate Bush and no matter how well he does, you will credit something else."
Incorrect. Though it grates on my soul, when Bush does something right, or worse, Cheney, I grudgingly admit it. One of my favorite Bush actions was the no-call telemarketer list despite the loss of jobs with it.
I'm hoping he'll surprise me in the next four years. Right now I'm disappointed by the vomiting of money and lives into the Iraq war.
"Do you really believe that Clinton was responsible for the balanced budget during his term?"
I do not think that any ONE person or action was responsible for anything major. I also do not think Clinton was dragged along kicking and screaming by the GOP. Similarly, I do not simply blame Bush for the Patriot Act and the Iraq war, but our Congress for buying the "With the terrorists" crud, and continuing to whine about procedure rather than the issues themslves.
"Wow, I don't know how you could say that. I think I have made my position very clear!"
I have been in a lot of debates, and I have been in a lot of debates with people older than I am. Usually when they give me the "You're a young buck; you'll grow into it" or the "older and wiser" angle, it is a signal that their argument is failing and they are incapable of defending their position. That clearly was not the case, so I apologize. Since age is something that cannot be changed, once people stoop to lording the one thing over me that they will ALWAYS have over me, it's usually a clue that the debate is over.
"Your positions are very liberal. If you don't want to characterize them as such, it matter not to me."
I have repeatedly referred to myself as liberal. I objected to what appeared to be demonization of the liberal position coupled with assumptions of what I believe based on your view of the liberal position. I am liberal because my beliefs happen to be liberal, not because I give a damn what Kerry does. It also doesn't mean that it's okay to say "follow your party" when I express something that doesn't fit your definition of liberal.
"If you disagree, it's fine, but it hardly sugeests that I accused you of taking positions you didn't take."
In several places, you actually did.
"And last, I think you have made your distaste of Kerry quite clear and I have no reason not to believe you."
"That's very Kerry-esque of you!"
Dammit, I KNEW I shouldn't have worn my flip flops to the store today.
"Also, it really only means that you get wiser and more knowledgeable as you grow older. Surely you can agree on that?"
Generally, though some stagnate with age, and no, I'm not saying you. Age does not necessarily impart wisdom over those younger. My best friend was an air force brat who had seen four countries by the time she was fourteen. Despite being near the same age, she had a lot more wisdom in the world than I did. I have also seen eighteen year olds who have made a point of educating themselves who are 'older and wiser' than they were at 14 who still possess more wisdom than a 70 year old who has never left his hometown who never wants to hear about the world outside of it. I do not feel age grants superiority. Maybe I will once I'm old enough to have superiority over people who are old enough to drive?
"You are very passionate about your beliefs for someone so young. I estimate that this will only stregthen as you grow older. But don't lose patience for the other side."
I don't. Generally there's a swing. When I'm in the deepest depths of "God these people are morons"ism, someone like you has to come along and remind me that I'm wrong.
"Instead, I ask only that you consider my thoughts before you dismiss them and I will pay you the same courtesy."
Agreed. And I actually wasn't dismissing your thoughts. I was pissed off that you were playing the age card. ;)