The President....

[Cardsfan2000]

It was a farce... nothing more. I was not wrong about this president's competence, but I was gravely wrong about his character. What scum... sick sick scum... YOU PRO-WAR individuals that have NOT fought in a war should NOT be promoting a madman's delusional policy that has General Casey, Gen. Powell, and the majority of the people that have thick enough skin to fight themselves do not believe is winnable. We have had 3,000 deaths is Iraq, it's time to BRING OUR BOYS home!
Moderate Republicans and even passionate conservatives, you have to turn on Bush. It is the only way to avoid more slaughter, and really, with all the evidence saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE to succeed in Iraq, that is what this is. Bush is sending our boys to be slaughtered!
Sure, the nice suburb Glendale Arizona may not be very dramatically affected but I can tell you, my hometown will. And that's what infuriates me about the chicken hawks, just infuriates me.
It's time to push for the draft; that would put an end to all the clowns like Bush and the majority of his Administrations. Individuals that WOULD NEVER, NEVER, NEVER fight for their country but push for the deployment of other boys in the name of a madman's (yes, I am COMPLETLEY SERIOUS ABOUT THAT) policy that is at odds with reality. With a draft, we would only go to war because we HAD to. With a draft, we would not see our boys dying in vain.

[Saturn5]

I agree with you about the draft.

No deferments. Men and women.

if this war is that important, then it's important enough for all Americans to make a sacrifice. even the President's daughters.

[Cardsfan2000]

I agree with you about the draft.

No deferments. Men and women.

if this war is that important, then it's important enough for all Americans to make a sacrifice. even the President's daughters.

God I was fuming when I heard that... Not exactly coherent.... But I don't regret anything I said, though I could've been more political about it.

[Saturn5]

If a draft cannot be instituted during wartime, then when could it ever be neccessary to institute it?

And do away with the tax cuts as well. The only president in American history to institute tax cuts and start a war at the same time.

Sacrifices should be made by all.

[KidStallyn]

We have had 3,000 deaths is Iraq, it's time to BRING OUR BOYS home!

And we have had 116,110 deaths in AUTOMOBILE RELATED ACCIDENTS in the United States since the start of Gulf War II in 2003, with potentially another 39K in 2006. WE MUST STOP THIS LUDICROUS AND INSANE LOSS OF LIFE NOW! BAN ALL CARS AND BAN THEM IMMEDIATELY!!!!!

[Drachir]

And we have had 116,110 deaths in AUTOMOBILE RELATED ACCIDENTS in the United States since the start of Gulf War II in 2003, with potentially another 39K in 2006. WE MUST STOP THIS LUDICROUS AND INSANE LOSS OF LIFE NOW! BAN ALL CARS AND BAN THEM IMMEDIATELY!!!!!OMG and how many deaths have we had with lung cancer and heart attack victims? We must ban cigarettes and ban all red meat immediately since they are the root of all evil. As someone on this board once said. "Amazing, Simply Amazing!" My God Cardsfan2000 and Saturn5 I am sure neither one of you have ever served in the military although I remember Saturn claiming to be a Vietnam Vet a long time ago. My Dad served in the Vietnam war and he is Pro-Bush and I was in the Marines myself during peace time however if I had to go to war I would support my Commander in Chief no matter who it is. May not agree with his policies but certainly wouldn't commit treason against my country which is exactly what both of you are doing. Hmmmm, what exactly is the punishment for treason again?

[Saturn5]

Treason???

By calling for a military draft???

[Drachir]

Treason???

By calling for a military draft???No by constantly bad mouthing the Commander in Chief and claiming to be a veteran of the armed forces. Bad mouthing the Commander in Chief you might as well be bad mouthing the United States.

[Saturn5]

It is called dissent, and is what the United States was founded upon. The politicians do it all the time, and is but one method used to maintain balance of power. Otherwise we might as well return to a monarchy. Should we now call him King George?

Was it treasonous to criticize Bill Clinton for his issues, or Richard Nixon etc?

Where in this thread has anyone claimed to be a veteran of the armed forces?

[az602]

Once again, it's a snorefest...:sleep: :sleep: :sleep: Gonna have to come up with some new rhetoric; less than 1% of the troops that have served in Iraq have died. Hardly a "slaughter".

[The Pirate Bob]

I agree with you about the draft.

No deferments. Men and women.

if this war is that important, then it's important enough for all Americans to make a sacrifice. even the President's daughters.


No war should ever be voted for or supported by any politician or corporate elite unless they feel it is so necessary to our existance and to preserve our country and way of life that they would be willing to first expect all of their children and relatives of age to immediately serve at the front also. In the Greek and Roman times this was a given. You didn't send your people to war unless you own served along side. Our modern day politicians are deceitful greedy cowards.

To them it is always the same thing. They and they cronies make the money off the war machine, stock market rises, while the vast majority of those fighting and dieing for them are the poorer underprivilaged.

http://www.peoplespirateparty.org/index_129.htm

[NJCardFan]

No war should ever be voted for or supported by any politician or corporate elite unless they feel it is so necessary to our existance and to preserve our country and way of life that they would be willing to first expect all of their children and relatives of age to immediately serve at the front also. In the Greek and Roman times this was a given. You didn't send your people to war unless you own served along side. Our modern day politicians are deceitful greedy cowards.

To them it is always the same thing. They and they cronies make the money off the war machine, stock market rises, while the vast majority of those fighting and dieing for them are the poorer underprivilaged.

http://www.peoplespirateparty.org/index_129.htm

Um, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't our armed forces 100% volunteer?

[The Pirate Bob]

Um, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't our armed forces 100% volunteer?

I don't believe volunteer or draft has anything to do with it. It is about social privilage and opportunity. Army recruiters concentrate on drawing from the lower and lower middle class sections of our country with the promise of a way out of their poverty and unemployment thru military educational programs. When the economy sucks and unemployment is high and the politicians do not have answer for it, they immediately fall back on old faithful.....WAR. This was exactly the position Bush and his cronies found themselves in, if you can remember our economy back then, when they came up with the lie for a war with Iraq.

A draft doesn't change that.....the rich and educated get deferments. The poor are not in the same economic position to acquire them.

[Reckon]

Having a draft didn't stop the nonsense in Vietnam.

[Saturn5]

No by constantly bad mouthing the Commander in Chief and claiming to be a veteran of the armed forces. Bad mouthing the Commander in Chief you might as well be bad mouthing the United States.

The President serves the people of the United States. Not the other way around. he is merely a man in PUBLIC office subject to and adherence of the Public scrutiny.

He is voted in by the people. And the people, through their elected representatives have the power to vote him out.

God help this country if there EVER came a day when dissent, disagreement, and "bad mouthing" is considered treason. That was how Hitler's state operated, not ours and hopefully never ours.

[Debacle]

If a draft cannot be instituted during wartime, then when could it ever be neccessary to institute it?

And do away with the tax cuts as well. The only president in American history to institute tax cuts and start a war at the same time.

Sacrifices should be made by all.

Do away with tax cuts? The "rich" are paying more in taxes now and the government revenues have dramatically increased....and the deficit has shrunk. All this in spite of increased spunding on the war.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be "significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion."

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

Most of the increase in individual tax receipts appears to have come from higher stock market gains and the business income of relatively wealthy taxpayers. The biggest jump was not from taxes withheld from salaries but from quarterly payments on investment gains and business earnings, which were up 20 percent this year.

[Saturn5]

Cause they're making more. Much Much more. Exxon mobil up 36% on the year and General dynamics up 30%. Apparently the war has been very good for some.

And the gap between ultra rich and middle to poor is widening all the time.

[82CardsGrad]

Cause they're making more. Much Much more. Exxon mobil up 36% on the year and General dynamics up 30%. Apparently the war has been very good for some.

And the gap between ultra rich and middle to poor is widening all the time.

There's enough examples out there to support the notion that socialist societies don't work... It's not the role of gov't to take from the rich and give to the poor. Leave that to Robin Hood...
Of people want to better their lives, stop relying upon someone else and/or the gov't to pay your way!

[SeeingRed]

This thread is ridiculous. What a bunch of Leftist crazy people are on this website.

CF2k, you speak like you're speaking for all of us in the military. Did it ever occur to you that over 80% of the military supports the GWOT (despite what Avondale Larry says)? Did it ever occur to you that we feel we are doing the right thing in Iraq and support our government instead of verbally raking them over the coals every chance we get? Quit stereotyping and quit pretending you are a spokesman for everything that is good because you aren't. You are a luntic with looney ideals. The majority of America DOES NOT agree with you (or Saturn). Contrary to your beliefs and distrust of the military, the majority of America knows that pulling out of Iraq would be bad for this country and it's safety. You spew a lot of garbage that you call facts and a lot of leftist propaganda. You are a brown nose that has told me in the past that you support the military, admire the military, etc, but continue to show your distrust in us and lack of faith in us. Bringing the military home is not what is best for this country, nor is it feasible (sp?). You have no real grasp on reality.

[Debacle]

Cause they're making more. Much Much more. Exxon mobil up 36% on the year and General dynamics up 30%. Apparently the war has been very good for some.

And the gap between ultra rich and middle to poor is widening all the time.


Excuse me. Please explain.

You want the rich to pay more, right? Tax cuts have always resulted in increased revenues for the government ie. more money that can be given to the poor. Tax increases historically has reduce revenues, reducing the amount of money that can be redistributed ie. less money to the poor.

So what if the gap between the rich and the poor widens. If everyone's income goes up that is a good thing. right? SO WHAT the gap between the "rich and poor" widens. The fallacy of the "gap" is bullsqueeze.

Let me explain.

Saturn, would you favor a law that would require giving a 100% raise to someone making 25,000 a year, even if that same law required a 30% raise to someone making 100,000 a year?

The gap between the two before the law is $75,000.
The gap after the law is now $80,000, an increased gap by almost 7%.

Even though the poor person has doubled his income, would you disapprove because the gap is even larger now?

The reality is Saturn, you just want to stick it to the achievers, right?

In a perfect Utopia, we should add up all the country's assets and money and divide it equally amongst all the citizens. That would be fair and just, right?:sarcasm: The only problem with this scenario is that in about 3-5 yrs after all the assets were divided up, the "poor" will be poor again and the "rich" will be rich again. Why? Because the poor do behaviors that keep them poor and the rich do behaviors to make them rich. Redistribution is not the answer. Neither is punishing achievers.

[NJCardFan]

Debacle, please let me stop you right there right now. Just stop. You are trying to debate Saturn with logic and facts. This is akin to trying to teach my cat calculus. It ain't gonna sink in no matter what you say. Believe me, anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature knows what you are saying is true but you are trying to explain this to someone who's brain is floating near the far reaches of the planet for which they are named. You just have to understand that Saturn absolutely loathes anyone or anything that has achieved or has more then he does and nothing is going to change that.

[Saturn5]

The fallacy of the "gap".



Gap between rich and poor threatens democracy
By David A. Love
March 8, 2006
America must get its priorities straight.
Several recent studies show that the income gap between rich and poor Americans is widening. The nation's wealth is under the control of fewer and fewer people, and this tide of inequality threatens democracy.
A study released in late January by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute found that the gap between the highest-income families and poor and middle-income families is significantly wider than it was 25 years ago.
The states with the largest gap between the top and bottom fifths are New York, Texas, Tennessee, Arizona and Florida.
Income gaps tend to be larger in the Southeast and Southwest, and smaller in the Midwest, Great Plains and Mountain states.
And in December 2005, a research paper by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon of Northwestern University, reported that between 1972 and 2001, the income of people in the top 1 percent grew by 87 percent. For people at the very top -- the 99.99th percentile -- the income gain was 181 percent. By contrast, the bottom 20 percent grew by only 3 percent.
What's more, an analysis of income-tax data by the Congressional Budget Office found that the top 1 percent of households owns almost twice as much of the nation's corporate wealth as they did 15 years ago.
These studies come amidst a growing push to increase the federal minimum wage. For the first time in nine years, it has stagnated at $5.15. In 18 states and 130 cities, groups have successfully lobbied for living wage reforms, which would raise the minimum wage based on a particular area's cost of living expenses. (Currently, a person earning minimum wage at a full-time salary makes only $10,700 a year. That figure is barely above the nation's poverty line for a single person.)
Economic equality ought to be a bipartisan issue. But many Republicans in Congress want to make permanent the president's tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest Americans. And members of Congress have given themselves a cost-of-living pay raise for the past six years in a row.
If more employers paid their employees a fair living wage, they could gain overall by absorbing the increase through decreased absenteeism, lower recruiting and training costs, higher productivity and increased worker morale.
And because the working poor spend most of what they earn, much of a potential minimum-wage increase would go back into the economy.
In 2004, 23 million people used food stamps, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, up from 17 million in 2000. And thousands of military families are living in poverty.
No longer can politicians sell the American people on the fallacy of trickle-down economics, which claims that throwing more money to the rich will eventually mean more money in the hands of those at the bottom.
Seven decades ago, President Roosevelt ushered in the New Deal to save capitalism from itself. In light of current trends, something once again must be done to reform America's unfair and unequal economic system.
The United States cannot exist as a democracy and an oligarchy at the same time.

http://www.progressive.org/media_mplove030806

[Saturn5]

planet for which they are named.

Break open your American History book for the first time, and learn something about the country you live in.

[SeeingRed]

Break open your American History book for the first time, and learn something about the country you live in.

Maybe you should do the same, except this time, understand it instead of twisting it to fit your political ideals.:ok:

[Debacle]

Gap between rich and poor threatens democracy

The individuals freedom to pursue being rich or poor strengthens a democratic republic.


And in December 2005, a research paper by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon of Northwestern University, reported that between 1972 and 2001, the income of people in the top 1 percent grew by 87 percent. For people at the very top -- the 99.99th percentile -- the income gain was 181 percent. By contrast, the bottom 20 percent grew by only 3 percent.

That research paper should've received an "**. They left out a few facts that may put things in perspective.

% of people living in poverty: year 1975 12.3%
year 2001 11.7% (a 5% decrease)

The level of annual income to be "poverty" level(family of 4):
year 1970 $ 3,968
year 2001 $18,267 (a 470% increase)

[Saturn5]

Maybe you should do the same, except this time, understand it instead of twisting it to fit your political ideals.:ok:

How does NJ's mistaken references to planets have anything to do with my knowledge of history. Cause that's what I was commenting on. Or did you not read the part I quoted.

[Saturn5]

CF2k, you speak like you're speaking for all of us in the military. Did it ever occur to you that over 80% of the military supports the GWOT (despite what Avondale Larry says)? Did it ever occur to you that we feel we are doing the right thing in Iraq and support our government instead of verbally raking them over the coals every chance we get? Quit stereotyping and quit pretending you are a spokesman for everything that is good because you aren't. The majority of America DOES NOT agree with you (or Saturn).

Actually the majority of Americans (at least the voting ones) and the majority of the military poll respondents agree that the troops should come home, and they do NOT support this misguided war. Those aren't CF2K's numbers, those are the military times poll numbers.

Surprised that the military personnel don't support the white house? Don't be. They stopped supporting rummy a while back. Right before he cut and run.

[Saturn5]

% of people living in poverty: year 1975 12.3%
year 2001 11.7% (a 5% decrease)

The level of annual income to be "poverty" level(family of 4):
year 1970 $ 3,968
year 2001 $18,267 (a 470% increase)


Thirty seven million Americans are living below the poverty line, a group so large, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter pointed out (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287641) in a post-Katrina cover article, that it amounts to "a nation of poor people the size of Canada or Morocco living inside the United States."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=24486

[Avondale Red Rage]

Debacle, please let me stop you right there right now. Just stop. You are trying to debate Saturn with logic and facts. This is akin to trying to teach my cat calculus. It ain't gonna sink in no matter what you say. Believe me, anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature knows what you are saying is true but you are trying to explain this to someone who's brain is floating near the far reaches of the planet for which they are named. You just have to understand that Saturn absolutely loathes anyone or anything that has achieved or has more then he does and nothing is going to change that.

You are the only one posting with what appears to be room temp IQ. Saturn has done nothing in this thread but put out his argument, based on his knowledge and/or research. Just because you're either not bright enough, or unwilling to deal with the argument presented you resort to derogatory drivel best suited for your prison environment.

[SeeingRed]

Actually the majority of Americans (at least the voting ones) and the majority of the military poll respondents agree that the troops should come home, and they do NOT support this misguided war. Those aren't CF2K's numbers, those are the military times poll numbers.

Surprised that the military personnel don't support the white house? Don't be. They stopped supporting rummy a while back. Right before he cut and run.

That's funny, because the video I saw of Sean Hannity and Rummy in Iraq showed a lot of military support of him.

You aren't a spokesman for the military either, so before you tell us what we think, get the facts.

I'm sick of being deployed, no doubt, but I have a job to do and I support the Commander regardless.

[Saturn5]

That's funny, because the video I saw of Sean Hannity and Rummy in Iraq showed a lot of military support of him.

You aren't a spokesman for the military either, so before you tell us what we think, get the facts.

I'm sick of being deployed, no doubt, but I have a job to do and I support the Commander regardless.


Not attempting to be the spokesperson, though you seem to be attempting to make yourself out as such.

The facts are the poll numbers were published by the military times. And much to your dismay, most of the military appears to disagree with the white house and with you. Just as they did with rummy.

And remember, following orders does not connote agreement.

[Saturn5]

You aren't a spokesman for the military either, so before you tell us what we think, get the facts.

I'm sick of being deployed, no doubt, but I have a job to do and I support the Commander regardless.

Cardsfan2000 (http://forums.azcardinals.com/member.php?u=679) http://forums.azcardinals.com/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register("postmenu_234599", true);
First String
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 858


http://forums.azcardinals.com/images/icons/icon1.gif Approval for War among the young men and women risking their lives-35%
Poll: U.S. troops lose confidence in Bush
WASHINGTON, Jan. 2 (UPI) -- U.S. soldiers are losing confidence in the way President George W. Bush is running the Iraq war.

According to a new poll conducted by the Military Times newspapers, "For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it," the Army Times reported Dec. 29.

"Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war," the newspaper said.

The findings of the poll, which was conducted by a mail survey from Nov. 13 through Nov. 22, marked a significant fall in the president's popularity and credibility with members of the U.S. armed forces, who had previously been among his staunchest supporters. In a previous Military Times poll two years ago, 83 percent of poll expected victory in Iraq. "This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent," the Army Times said.

"Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved," the newspaper said. This marked a dramatic decline from the 63 percent who approved of his conduct of the war in the 2004 poll.

The paper noted that contrary to widely held assumptions, the president's popularity among the U.S. armed forces is now "only slightly higher than for the population as a whole."

The poll was the fourth to be conducted among active duty military subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. "The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole," the Army Times said. "The survey's respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population."

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism...2-040241-1160r (http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20070102-040241-1160r)