The Speech Bush Should have Given

The words liberals live by:

"We lost the election, but I will not get over it. For the next 4 years I promise to ***** and complain everyday about my life in the US and every move teh administation makes. Every time I see a libral article complining about the administration I will pass it along to all my friends. Overall I promise to become the most negative person in the world."

 

So, can you tell me about the conservatives and how they never ever opposed Clinton on anything? Tell me about how they fully supported going into the Balkans. Tell me about how they didn't fight Clinton when he tried to fight terror.

WTF is your deal? You act like disagreement was invented in the last 4 years.

Oh yeah, and why don't you atleast defend your boy Bush. Look through the stuff mentioned in that above post and tell us all why we are wrong. Oh, that's right, it's impossible.

 

The words you live by:

look at the pretty bunny!

 

I believe what we are doing was done ith the right intentions. Further I support most of his policies. That's not impossible. Impossibl is getting a liberal to actually do anything except talk of "plans" and complain.

Maybe you (the vocal minority) are smarter than the rest of us here in the red states. Problem is you weren't smart enough to win the election. If you would have spent more energy on telling people the policies of your party rather than just attacking the current administration more people would have listened. Instead you complained.

Liberals are good at talking. We are good at doing. Liberals talk edof moving to Canada but they didn't. You have demonstartions led by radical individuals which you thought would sway voters, all it did was showed alot of hard working people what a freak show the democrat party is in the US. We went out and took care of business by silently getting the constituents lined up and ready to vote. Why you're out complaing about the country the Republicans are out leading the country and the businesses.

So enjoy the next 4 years. But just remember one thing instead of always omplaining why not offer solutions? That's right just like your candidate showed you din't have any real solutions just "Plans" which were never outlined.

 

Republican: Look at the pretty bunny.

Democrat: Why waste your time looking at the ugly bunny. I need to organize a demonstration to protest this. Where is that number for PETA?

 

You sir, are clueless. The difference is that WHATEVER the Bush admin or Bush supporters do, you guys will find SOMETHING wrong with it. Take for example the latest case of Dick Cheney being lambasted for wearing a certain color to a memorial for Aushwitz survivors.

When did Republicans stop Clinton from fighting the war on terror? When you guys were cheering on the Balkans? I pray to ask you how you feel this is different from the current war on Iraq. I was in favor of action in the Balkans for the same reason I'm in favor of action in Iraq: I think we can make a difference.

You talked about intelligence admitting they had nothing. I find it amazing that you still harp on this fact when 4 of the world's top intelligence agencies all agreed. But to you, it's not possible that they could have given Bush faulty intelligence. The only logical explanation for you is that Bush lied and told the intelligence what he wanted. After all, it's much harder to chant Bush was given bad intelligence than it is to chant you guys' typical diatribe: Bush lied, people died. (BTW, did it take you guys like all of 5 minutes to come up with that one?)

The problem most Republicans have with Democrats isn't that they disagree with us because this country wouldn't function properly if everyone agreed all the time. What Republicans have a problem with is that Democrats honestly believe that they can never be wrong. No matter what happens, you guys are right and everyone else is wrong. That's fine to believe because everyone likes to think that they're right all the time but when you guys start acting like your opinions are fact, that's when you start to get annoying. (Another thing: you can't possibly think that Republicans fought Clinton anywhere near the amount that the Democrats have fought Bush).

Another is lumping all Republicans by saying if we're Republican we're Bush's boys or something. I don't agree with everything Bush has done but I do agree with a lot of the thing's he has done. Maybe you should (instead of accusing and running down everyone who doesn't think like you) ask what we think (though I know it's much easier and tough looking to say "defend your boy Bush now!")

So, please do everyone a favor and follow 2 simple rules (that I wish everyone would follow):

1 - If you're going to post a message without giving your opinion on the issues, don't be suprised when someone else does the same thing.

2 - Please don't act like anyone who disagrees with you is a weak mind who is following someone else without finding out facts for themselves.

I know it's hard to be civil and thoughtful sometimes but if we don't do it, this board might as well be called the "Post a link, lambaste an entire segment of America and have your thread locked" forum.

 

Kind of like the Rocket's season: started out slow, bitter disappointment, lot's of finger-pointing, heads being readied to roll and then... they put it into a different gear and things are looking rosier-- not certain but rosier.

 

ahahahahahaahahahahahah










hahahahhahahahahahahhahaha

 

We can start in 1996 when Clinton requested more money to fight terrorism. It was Orin Hatch who said, "The Administration would be wise to utilize the resources Congress has already provided before it requests additional funding."

Then there was the 1995 measure that Clinton wanted to expand intel gathering and expand the wiretapping authority. Newt Gingrich explained that it was hard to justify giving the FBI more power.

Those are a couple of examples of how Republicans balked at Clinton's effort to step efforts against terrorism.

 

Because you are ignorant of Kerry's solutions doesn't mean he didn't offer them. They were published in book form, they were available on his website, for those that cared to puruse them.

As for liberals being good at 'talking' and conservatives being good at 'doing' that is a curious statement.

Do you think Iraq was done well? Do you think the torture, the looting, the lack of support, the lack of planning, the fact that our troops weren't properly equipped, or that we pulled back on the IRaqi soldiers who were going into Falluja and they were decimated, or the fact that we can't even control the strip from the Green Zone to the airport after being in the country for more than a year has all been done well? Is that what Conservatives are good at doing?

Yes we don't like what has happened and what is going on, and we will complain about it, and we will continue to offer other solutions which you might continue to ignore and then ask why we haven't offered other solutions. But there is nothing wrong with complaining when a leader is taking a nation down the wrong path. In fact there is something wrong with not complaining.

 

Sorry, I missed this laugahable passage earlier.

Sorry to break this to you chuckie, but us cultural elite, who dwell in the urban centers on the East and West coast, and provide the crappy entertainment for your multiplexes, who provide financial and legal services, etc for the Wal-Marts that you and the rest of the red middle shop at, and who provide the tax base from which the rest of you and the red states siphon (so that they can vote for bigger tax breaks for me, that their children can pay for), are pretty hard at work too.

And, oh yeah, we're not stupid or uneducated enough to have thought that Saddam planned 9-11, that Iraq was going to welcome us with flowers, that Social Security is going bankrupt, to see bunnies where there are turds- that's the difference between you and us, ability to see reality, as well as few tax brackets in most cases.

 

I know Kerry was just too smart for us dummies in the red states to understand. I mean his tax package for raising taxes on the rich, promising lower small business taxes and cutting the deficit in 1/2 is brilliant. Brilliant if you don't understand math, but hey who cares it's an election say what you have to say to get elected.

We are doing exactly what we have to do in Iraq. Is everything perfect, no. I'm sure you think the world would be a better place with Saddam in power or if we would just pull out of Iraq but this was the plan all along. Take out Saddam and give Iraq the ability to govern itself.

Complaining is fine. But crying and b1tching everyday, how does that help anything?

 

Sam why don't all you well to do blue staters go off to Canada like you promised? Oh because you're all talk.

Let me address you rpoints:

1. It's a war on Terror. Not Saddam or even Al Queda. War on terror.

2. Most people welcomed a change in Iraq. Just your friends in the media portray the negative minority.

3. Social Security - Interesting it was a big issue to Kerry in the election (although he never said what his solution was unless you goto www.loser.com), but now that W has a solution for improving the returns you say no leave it it's fine. <2% ROI is not good. The stock market historically has been 4-5 times that rate of Return. Why not give people an option to invest it.

4. Everyone may see their reality differently. You are entitled to see whatever you want, no matter how wrong it is.

 

1. The war on terror? Again Iraq had very little to do with terror at all. The only connection is that a fund set up to fund victims of Israeli oppression, had a small percentage of its money go to families of suicide bombers as well as the completely innocent victims of Israeli bombs, bull dozers, and bullets. By the way how much did suicide bombing go down after Saddam's regime fell and those payments were stopped? If you answer none you are correct. I guess that really didn't have anything to do with terror at all.

2. Almost Everyone wanted change in Iraq, including myself. We just didn't want an elective war, invasion based on dishonesty, and mistakes to do it. By the way the media totally supported the invasion at the time, and the NYT later had to apologize for not supporting the war so much without taking a closer look at the administration's case for it.

3. If people want to invest in the stock market they still can. there are all sorts of retirement plans that invest in the stock market already. One of which is the famous 401k plan. One reason people are against Bush's plan is that those aren't always safe. Ask Enron employees how well stock market investment plan for retirement went. I'm glad they at least have some social security money coming their way. By the way when the people who's privatized retirement plans fail, and they don't still have social security to fall back on, guess who are they are going to look to bail them out? That's right the government, so the government will end up having to pay twice. Bush's plan is one for disaster.


4. Do you remember the research done on how differently Bush and Kerry supporters saw reality? I'll give you a hint of the results. Bush supporters believed all sorts of things were still true, even though they weren't. They included Saddam/Al Qaeda support, Saddam/WMD findings, 9/11/Saddam ties etc. They believed all those things and more even after none of them were true, and you are going to comment on who's side's reality is true?

 

Nobody is saying Kerry was too smart. Just that Bush had better presentation, and people bought into it.

The one thing you mentioned about Kerry's plan is actuall somewhat true. The numbers don't add up. But if you want to compare the two plans Kerry's add up much better than Bush's did. How is Bush doing on his pledge to cut the deficit in half?

How did Bush do with his deficit the first term? By the way you understand how much Bush is responsible for big govt. waste of money with his deficit right? Except for military spending the money we pay just for interest on the debt is our largest expenditure. That is huge money we pay, and get absolutely zero in return for it. That is worse than pork barrel spending.

As for Iraq:

I am sick to death of people who haven't read what I and others have said and have the nerve to tell us that we wish Saddam was still in power. That shows a true lack of understanding, and is simplistic and insulting.

Saddam has been taken out, but Iraq isn't governing itself. The invasion and the way it is handled has damaged the honor and integrity of the U.S. That is something I love and care about. The invasion has given democracy a blackeye, and great distrust. The invasion has given terrorists a new center of operations that they didn't have before. The invasion has increased radicalization of folks throughout the Arab world. The invasion has cost lives, and money that didn't need to go down the drain. I've also said that it would be wrong to just completely withdraw and leave Iraq. We made the mess and we need to help clean it up.

 

1. NIce slogan, good point, and by good I mean indicative of the fact that you have nothing of any intellectual value to say that wouldn't get you embarrassed again.

2. IF by "most" you mean a "minority", as most public opinion polls show, you are correct. Going to war not worth it, most voters say But please, I'd like to here your theory on how 50% is a minority, so elaborate.

3. 4/5% ROI x risk - 20% management fees, plus trillion dollars of short term debt vs. 2% guaranteed return x low to no risk x 1% management fees. Remind me to use your investment advice more often.

4. Yes, you're entitled to be wrong- see No 2 above, and I'm entitled to say as much. Now, there's an equal number of us, but you're still dead wrong.

 

20% management fee? Who are you investing with the mafia?

So I take it your Investments aren't invested in the market at all. Here is my investment advice: Go find a shovel, dig up up your piggy bank from your back yard and go find a broker.

 

20% administrative costs - of course some estimates based on empirical data from Chile, Argentina, and England put it closer to 30%. Regardless, the rate of return is compromised significantly,not to mention that it can exert profound pressure to heavily indebted governments, such as ones that have to borrow massive amounts every day just to pay the bills, let alone implement expensive schemes. Like Argentina, or us.
http://www.cepr.net/argentina_and_ss_privatization.htm

I hold a modest amount of securities, both privately and as part of a 401k; I also have accrued a decent amount of Social Security benefits, which will of course, still be there in 39 years or so, and with minor tweaking to the system, should still be there after that.

Of course we could junk that system and I would have the same thing coming, but of course ultimately I'd have to pay out more to finance the billions and billions in debt we'd have to pay to implement the system - so I'm worse off in that department. ANd of course, this presupposes that there won't be a full on economic collapse, which tends to happen in heavily indebted countries like ours that attempt this.

Now, is there anything else that you want to be wrong about today? Because you're almost batting 1.000

 

Sam, as of today, I'm lumping you in the Manny Ramirez category of people who need to get laid. What's got you down today? Working on a Sunday? Democracy in Iraq? Webber's lucky 3 pointer the other night?

Your comparison of the American and Argentine goverments is especially humorous, however. Which Krugman article are you regurgitating there?