posted 03-14- 10:04 AM            

He removed CO2 from a list of EPA regulated pollutants, despite his campaign promise to regulate C02 emmissions. He was convinced by the last minute lobbying of the energy companies that global warming and the effect of CO2 on temperature is a myth. This was against Whitman's request that he leave C02 on the list. Who benefits from C02 being spewed in greater quantities? Oil companies and short-sighted car companies. Who loses? Just about everyone else. This is another example of Bush's regressive embrace of old energy technology which will lead to a greater dependency on oil (much of it foriegn oil), a stagnation of American industry as it once again falls behind global energy technology, and an increase in global temperatures which could have serious long-term consequences.

Bush also is reforming bankruptcy law. His reform makes any debt to automakers manditory to pay back 100%, despite any other debts owed. This means that if you declare bankruptcy, and you owe three entities $10,000, and you have only $10,000 in assets, the automaker gets it all and the others get the "fuck you" from Dubya.

Of course the bankruptcy reform only applies to individuals, not corporations or banks. Corporations can still run up huge debts and then have them all forgiven by the law, much like Bush's brother Neil did when he stole $1.6 billion from the government in the S&L bailouts, including Neil's own $1.25 million "loan" that he got for free.

Another subject: Bush's abandonment of the peace processes in Korea and Isreal. Who would want to do that? Someone who really wants a bogeyman to use a missile defense system against.

posted 03-14- 11:08 AM               

Yep... and instead of telling us why he decided to go back on his word, he had President Cheney issue some vague statement about how rising energy costs need to be kept in check.

posted 03-14- 12:54 PM            

Listen to what they say and then watch what
they do.

Whenever they use the word "people" automatically
put the word "rich" in front of people. As in
"We are going to help people." Translates to
"We are going to help rich people.".

posted 03-14- 03:04 PM               

The "rich" people do pay the bills. The top 1% of taxpayers pay 25% of all income taxes. The top 5% pay 40% of all income taxes. The top 50% pay 94% of all income taxes.

posted 03-14- 05:45 PM               

To think... all these years I've been paying taxes and I never really had to.

posted 03-14- 07:07 PM               

You're the one who believes that Bush should say "rich" people pay the bills. Bush just said the people who pay. Bush means everyone who pays taxes. Like you and me...not just the rich, the whole 50% who pay for the other 50%! And you wonder why it was such a close election...Ha!

As soon as the demo's can get the majority sucking on the national nipple and the minority footing the bill, then they will win all the elections. Of course that will mean the end of America, but so what...as long as the "rich" are punished for being more successful...that's the important thing.

posted 03-18- 12:00 PM            

It was all there.....all along...should have looked at what he DIDN'T do for the state of Texas.

Now that the campaign is well over, we aren't getting as much attention as we were. Well, the legislature is in session and guess what....NO MONEY. Yep, we are seriously short on cash. All the tax cuts that happened when he was in office here has left us high and dry. I guess that's OK because Rush says taxes are evil and that minorities are slaves to the system. Of course when your state can't even fund its own flagship university.......

But it's ok though....in 4 years we'll see the damage that this man is capable of.

It sucks too...cause he really shouldn't even be in office. If all those bums the Democrats trucked in to vote would have punched the right hole..we'd be a lot better off.

posted 03-18- 12:36 PM            

I can't believe how people are swallowing
his shit about reaching out to democrats
etc. Behind the scenes he's doing some of
the most republican shit possible. His latest
is doing away with the policy of the ABA
screening judicial appointments. They've been
doing this for 50 years. Strong republicans
feel that this policy makes the courts too
liberal so old court appointed Bush steps in
and puts a stop to it.

posted 03-18- 12:39 PM               

I dunno what itll take for people to understand that, but if you pay taxes, you get a tax cut.

posted 03-18- 02:17 PM            

Sorry, but you must not be following the news here in Texas....so once again, you are running your trap without knowing what's going on. What state law that allows me to take a break on my tuition? Please inform me.

You might want to do some research before you go back into your 'You Democrats..' rant.

I hate to tell you bud but Texas doesn't have enough cash....plain and simple. You figure the rest out.

Texas doesn't have enough cash to pay for the roads that all these Mexican trucks and NAFTA traffic is generating. Texas doesn't have enough cash to fully fund its universities..much less its public schools. Shit, we can't even afford to give our thousands of illegal aliens health shots (note : Heavy sarcasm)

Don't give us that rich people bullshit. You make more, you pay more....price of success. You don't see an poor people bitching about their luxury tax on a new Mercedes do you?

Sorry Mirth..you are preaching the same old bullshit and rhetoric....go get back in line with the rest of the Rush kids...

posted 03-18- 05:15 PM               

Thats the number (approx) by which Bush lost the popular vote, so what were saying is that although everyone is allowed a vote (usualy...last election not included) the democratic system of election gets ignored, if I were American I could just as easily say Hey, I voted for Al Gore but you ignored my vote! How is that constitutional? My vote counts doesn't it? well, seemily sometimes it does, and sometimers it doesn't

posted 03-18- 07:17 PM            

The military and legal system largely benefit the corporate interests. If the rich really thought that taxes were too high, they would move to a nice tax-free country like Liberia or Somolia, but they don't. Why? because they know they are getting a pretty good deal here. They get an environment that allows them to make more money than they can spend sensibly (hence Cheney's new 20,000 sq. ft. house), and they have the full force of the law and the military protecting thier assets.

The corporations do not own this country, the citizens do. The citizens do not owe the corporations anything, we've given them their existence. They are a resource that we must use to make this country better.

Rather than waste money on a missile defense system which ultimately only serves to protect the oil company's easy access to a hostile market in the middle east, why don't we invest money in alternative energy R&D which will have a the long-term benefits of making a better environment for our citizens, employing many people and creating a powerful technology for export? It would also allow us to walk away from the middle east. Think of how much military spending we would save if the oil bogeymen were no longer a concern.

posted 03-18- 08:53 PM               

each party selects a leader, this is done before an election and unless something major goes on in his party he remains leader unless voted out by his party for some reason, so, basicaly 3 parties each with a leader. The leader and Deputy and both chosen by a voting system within his party, ie the party elects it's leader.

At a General election the people vote on which party they want, and every vote counts, it doesn't matter where you live, in what area ect, every vote is counted for and against, this is because we're 1 country and everyone lives under the same rule of law, so farmer Joe pays all the same taxes as Mrs muppet in central london (except for a local taxe that you pay for the honour of living at all)

Often at the same time there are local elections for councils that basicaly run the local area stuff such as planning permission, garbage collection and stuff like that, these elections don'yt actualy affect who will be voted as Prime Minister, but are usualy a good indication of which way the people will vote for the PM

So, I have to say that I think our system is much better than the US system, BUT, that being said, we don't have that same wierd breakdown of the coutry that you guys have, it's almost like your states are a power unto themselves and this makes a big difference to you guys. Also, the USA was formed in a rather unusual way, in that it's like a jigsaw puzzle country, a unification of individual states that at one time didnt really have much to do with each other, which doesn't help.

I think maybe 80 years ago the US voting system made sense.. but I really don't think it does now, but the changes needed to make it make sense would be bloked by the Senate because they would lose the power they have right now, which IMO is far to great, but can be a good thing if the President is a donkey like,Bush.

Still, I'm of the opinion that if you're voting for a leader each individual vote should count, it's the only fair way to do it, but again, thats where your Senate gets in the way.

How can it be right for the majority to be ignored? Thats simply not democratic.

posted 03-18- 11:23 PM               

If only the popular voted counted in a Presidental election then big states don't get to push anyone around, the proper democratic system of the guy with the most voted wins!

posted 03-18- 11:55 PM               

~WWKahuna

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lothar:
Dubya did two interesting things this week which show where his loyalties lie.

He removed CO2 from a list of EPA regulated pollutants, despite his campaign promise to regulate C02 emmissions. He was convinced by the last minute lobbying of the energy companies that global warming and the effect of CO2 on temperature is a myth. This was against Whitman's request that he leave C02 on the list. Who benefits from C02 being spewed in greater quantities? Oil companies and short-sighted car companies. Who loses? Just about everyone else. This is another example of Bush's regressive embrace of old energy technology which will lead to a greater dependency on oil (much of it foriegn oil), a stagnation of American industry as it once again falls behind global energy technology, and an increase in global temperatures which could have serious long-term consequences.

Bush also is reforming bankruptcy law. His reform makes any debt to automakers manditory to pay back 100%, despite any other debts owed. This means that if you declare bankruptcy, and you owe three entities $10,000, and you have only $10,000 in assets, the automaker gets it all and the others get the "fuck you" from Dubya.

Of course the bankruptcy reform only applies to individuals, not corporations or banks. Corporations can still run up huge debts and then have them all forgiven by the law, much like Bush's brother Neil did when he stole $1.6 billion from the government in the S&L bailouts, including Neil's own $1.25 million "loan" that he got for free.

Another subject: Bush's abandonment of the peace processes in Korea and Isreal. Who would want to do that? Someone who really wants a bogeyman to use a missile defense system against.

[This message has been edited by Lothar (edited 03-14-2001).]

---

posted 03-19- 01:39 AM               

West Virginia voted Republican this time around, and as a result was instrumental in putting Bush in.

The state usually votes Democratic, but given the Steel and Coal industries' fear of a Gore administration, they voted against him.

Had Gore been elected (by popular vote) the state's economy would be even worse off than it currently is.

posted 03-19- 09:04 PM               

to make it easier, the General election is for the PM, you vote on which you want.

Local elections are for MP's, local area stuff, they are pretty regular events.

What often happens is that the 2 coincide, so on voting day in a General Election for the PM, you would vote at the same time for the local rep MP but the 2 are counted sperately.

I think where the US has it's problems with a system like this is that your individual States have too much say in how that state is run, here local MP's (like your senators) have little say in the running of their area, but can have a big effect on wether bills get passed when put before the house. See in general here, it doesn't matter where you live, everywhere is effectively the same, so where in the US one state can be very different to it's neighbour thats not an issue here, so all that really matters is the selection of the ruling party and local MP's don't need alot of power.

If you have a good leader then really a state doesn't need a powerful/good senator, wether a President will be good or bad for a specific state shouldn't be an issue because he's supposed to be thinking about whats best for the country to start with, and his Senators advise him on state issues and he then balances his policies so that no single state is far worse or better off than any other

Again though, I do know alot about US affairs, but how things are run and decided are a little more complex, I talk to my fiancee in Michigan about US politics alot and there's so much that just seems to be done wrongly or not in the best way, but thats down to what seems to be an over complex and outdated system, believe me I'm not slamming the US on any of this, but I'm used to a greatly different way of doing things that "to me" seems more logical

posted 03-19- 09:26 PM               

Our Constitution may be flawed, but it's the oldest in the world and we are the oldest democracy so we have to be careful when tampering with it.

posted 03-21- 12:01 PM               

And hey, don't even get started about the house of Lords, I aint even sure I got our voting system right yet! lol

posted 03-21- 07:32 PM               

It's a great dream that everyone earns what he or she deserves but a bit childish to believe it. Free enterprise has been tried and every great industrial power in the world has turned away from it to some degree. Socialism is not a dirty word it just means that if some control is not placed on competitive interest that they will historically destroys themselves.

When the U.S. was truly a free economy (before the turn of the 20th century) there was a major depression every 8 years on average. Socialism in the form of the creation of the Federal Reserve along with other laws slowed but did not completely erase the terrible cost of unfettered greed.

The United States almost single handedly insured that the great depression would wreck the economies of every nation in the world by not taking any corrective action. The economic policies of the Republicans have been tried and have failed. It's time for some new ideas.

That’s the problem with Bush and the like, they are blinded by their belief in the superiority of the upper class (wealthy). On average the rich people I know are no brighter than the average Joe is. If there is no bread let them it cake, that’s what they are saying between the lines. Bush is a fine example of this rich but not so bright syndrome. I would not trust the people who brought us the saving and loan disaster to do much for the economy. It is simply not reasonable to believe that from a historical point of view that the policies he supports will jump-start the economy.

posted 03-21- 09:18 PM            

The Limbaugh kids won't agree with it..but very good post.

posted 03-21- 09:41 PM            

I don't know, does it? You are the smart one. We have taxes on lots of things...you figure the rest out.

"I don't care what you make dan... and you only just got the job... so shut up. You don't even have a tax return from them yet, so bite your tounge, boy."

Are you sure about that? Sure you care, and it hurts you too. Only just got the job? Say that to a new CEO or something...point is..I HAVE the job.

"I know texas doesn't have any money... the damn liberals keep giving it to the illegal aliens... but you support that by supporting the moron liberals... idiot."

Hmmm...lets see:

How did the state vote for president? REPUBLICAN

What is the majority of the legislature?
REPUBLICAN

What is the political atmosphere here?
CONSERVATIVE

SO, Mr. Political Genius, HOW IN THE FUCK could the liberals let the wetbacks have all the money? REPUBLICANS run this state...you stupid shit. Did you get married because you require a full-time babysitter?

"You're right, I don't know whats going on in moronville. I hate texas."

But wait a minute...you just said Texas doesn't have any money..No you say you don't know? Yes, you DONT know what's going on, yet you ramble on like you do...like a total ass.

"I figured you would at least tell what was going on.. but I guess that was too much to expect from someone like you. To actually explain the situation...."

I've been trying to explain the situation to you for months...but unfortunately, you have your head buried so far up your ass, your proctologist doubles as your dentist.

"no you would prefer to act like a 10 year old who got his bike taken away......"

Pot calling the kettle black?

"And BTW, the tax is more for the higher paying people... so whats the fucking problem?"

You mean poor people dont pay taxes?...the HUMANITY of it all. Maybe they don't in MyHeadsUpMyAss, USA where you live, but where I live they do.

"Can you not count?"

Hmmmm...verdict still out on this one

"Or is that you think they deserve no break at all? But you do?"

Who, what huh? They who? Rich or poor?

"Thats pathetic, but it's what I have come to expect from you dan... more tantrums and stupidity."

I'll make a mental note of that when I'm your boss.

"Go back to sucking gore's ass.... he needs some sympathy...."

gore who?

"And I told you before, moron, I hate rush as much as you.... probably more..... but you don't listen, just like smokey...."

How can you hate him when you talk like him....? Afraid to admit the truth? I bet you are fat fuck just like him.

" trapped in your own little worlds.... let us know when you get back to this one....."

Face it Mirth....I own you bitch. Just like Sv. Everything you say, everything you do on this board...I can rip it apart with ease. You really should think about what you post...It does make you look rather stupid and immature for a grown man. You are a grown man aren't you?

posted 03-21- 09:50 PM               

Who the fuck moderates this forum!? LMAO

posted 03-22- 04:57 AM               

Yeah that was a good post there bomber.

posted 03-24- 01:48 PM               

Who, what huh? They who? Rich or poor? "
I know that you can't help but be an asshole.. but try not to be a moron.

"I'll make a mental note of that when I'm your boss."
And again, your ignorance of the real world steps in..... You will never be my boss.. chances are, you will always be lower on the pole then I will... mostly because you think that your college degree will give you management... sorry dipshit. Look around... all those 50 year old cubicle dwellers are just like you.... degree and no brain.. You will rot just like they do because you have no clue what it takes to rise...
"How can you hate him when you talk like him....? Afraid to admit the truth? I bet you are fat fuck just like him."
Nope, wrong again... and I wouldn't know if I talk just like him... I don't listen... But I would chance that you think you are the shit... of course you're wrong... You are still a sad overgrown child trying to act like you know something. You don't. And your posts prove it. I ask you a simple question and you dodge it. Because I was right. Just like the liberal idiots you love.
I am not offended... just worried that someone may actually believe the crap you spout. It's sad when people believe the crap that politics throws out.... I base my opinions on what I have seen....Perhaps Rush has a similar way of looking at it.. like I said, I don't listen, I don't need someone to tell me what to think.
BTW, why do you listen to Rush? If you don't like what he say's why tune in? That has confused me for quite awhile, none of the conservatives have quoted him, yet you liberals always say we sound like him. It is somewhat odd to think that you do listen to him, and worse yet, actually believe what he says..... But I guess we all waste time in our own way....

posted 03-25- 09:44 PM               

I have let to meet a conservative that understood the economy. It kind of like the flat earth people. They only believe what they can see. What they see is the injustice of a graduated tax structure. What they don't see is what we should be worried about.

No matter how preverse it may seem borrowed money stimulates the economy faster and more effectively than tax breaks. At best the tax break is just deverting attention from the real economic problems. Giving money to the rich is truely not stimulating because it is not distributed to the core industries.

The tax break is really not a big deal but having the president so focused on it is. I don't think that this administration has the intellectual vision to lead the economy, and that is tragic.

The truth is that the rich are not really that important to what happens to our economy, it's the people who dig ditches and build planes, and sit in cubicles that matter. Keep them happy and productive and everyone will do fine.

A small percentage of the people who make more than $300,000 a year are actually contributing more than they are taking. That's not a problem but it should be taken into account when you decide what economic policy should be.

posted 03-25- 11:04 PM               

He probly listens just to see what kinda fucked up crap he is spouting latly.

Thats probly also why you tune into Dan I would guess.