Bush

Removed by Moderator

 

Is there a place on this forum where I can learn how to post pictures and quotes?

Redistribution of wealth is a terrible idea that rewards lazyness and is much too close to socalism than I am comfortable with.[/quote]

 

I go to a Christian school and my AP Bio teacher believes in a mix of evolution and creation. Only by God's will could such a thing have come about. I personally believe in a literal 6 day creation by God, but that is only one view that christians take.

On another topic: going back to redistribution of wealth. I see that this could only lead to problems. Look at Russia, they tried it and it failed. Human nature is such that we are all lazy if given a chance. This is the basis of the Protestant work ethic: your work is rewarded by how good and long that work is. This way certain people don't shoulder all the work while the rest slack off. This is why capitalism works and communism doesn't. For all you socialists out there, look at who's country is the richest: America. This is because the workplace and economy were founded with this idea. Even if the amount of Christians is slipping in America, the ideas and morals are still there under the surface. If people work for an income based on how well they do their job, then they will inevitably harder.

On tax cuts. What some people out there don't get is who pays the majority of the taxes. Everyone whines about "tax cuts for the rich." Well, who do you think pays the greatest amount of taxes? The "rich." Do you know why they have to pay so much? Because they have to pay for everyone on welfare. This goes back to the work ethic. If you work hard, you get more money. This also goes back to the christian morals in society. Since these have been slipping in America, the need for welfare has gone up because of illigatimate children, drugs, etc. Yes, welfare was started for a good reason as part of the new deal in the Great Depression, but it needs to have some serious reforms. As do many American laws and European counterparts.

Feel free to disagree with me. These are only my thoughts.

 

I know this will date me, but who is Keira Knightley?

 

I just wanted to let you know that I have split this topic, three times. The part on democracy as a form of government can be found here:
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=736
The part on the governmental system of the United States can be found here:
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=737
And the part on religions can be found here.
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=738
Thank you, furhter replies can be made in their respective topics. I will reply to your latest post there, KKlover.

 

It's ok. She was relatively unknow until Bend it like Beckham and Pirates of the Caribbean.
She's a British actress of 19 years of age. She will be in the new King Arthur movie that is coming out soon.
Good looking and has talent. One of the new standouts in Hollywood.

 

She's 19 years old? My sister is older! My, she could date Panzer.
I didn't like Pirates for anything but the music actually. This is gonna get me bashed again.

 

I went to "Pirates" expecting to be bored (took my daughter) and was pleasantly surprised. It's quirky, but kept my attention. OK, now I know who KKlover means.

 

Yes, the US gave them to Iran also, let the Middle Eastern nations weaken each other first...

There is nothing wrong with this. I have no problem paying more taxes if there are no potholes on my street and no crack houses next door to me. You need money to spend money, that is why when the Republicans are in office they always build up a nice big debt for themselves. This is because they lower taxes and increase spending on defense and in the case of Bush, offense.

 

iraq did not have weapons but it was the only thing bush could think of and we stupidly bought it and joined him

second democrats are not good they try to steal the taxes but thier plan backfires and they also build up a debt. the republicans are just as stupid and build a debt as well

 

Let's get it right. Iran got its weapons from the U.S. when the Shah was in power and was our best friend in the region. Iraq was known as a troublemaker and Iran provided an excellent balance for them and the Soviet Union. After the revolution, Iran was even worse than Iraq in terms of being dangerous. The U.S. gave weapons (not WMDs) to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war since they had become the lesser of two evils. Actually Iraq still got less from the U.S. than Iran did. When was the last time you saw an M-60 tank or U.S. aircraft in Iraqi colors?

 

Few people have trouble with a government maintaining order and infrastructure. Many of us have trouble with government spending on social programs.

Also, most of America's deficit now (and always since WW II) is because of runaway social spending, not defense spending. I' ll get numbers to prove it if anyone is interested.

 

yea show it us

but what about thier treribble job of taxing that has to be part of it

 

Why do you all think Bush came up with the WMDs???? There are numerous quotes from Clinton and Gore saying that terrorism and WMDs were top priority. The difference is that the most they ever did was fire a couple of cruise missles. Bush is actually doing something to improve the world. Iraq is not the focus here, it is the "war on terrorism." That is important to remember. Also, we get plenty of letters from soldiers telling of all the vast improvements that are happening in Iraq. All the media reports is the loss of life, which isn't even that great. Of course, loss of life is always terrible, but for deaths in a warzone, come on! Here in America, the mainstream media hates Bush so they tell the news with a slant. Of course, it wouldn't be good the polar opposite either; but some fairly balanced news would be nice.

The current republicans are the first in a long time to actually go into debt. But a lot of that is to fund the war, since Clinton cut back the military so much.

 

Thank you SgtBob! yes, this goes back to my point that welfare reform is greatly needed in America. Also, the social spending of the democrats is most often to fund public schools (which are in the pits). I go to a private school and the level of education is much higher because they have to dumb it down in the public schools to avoid "discrimination." Thank you ACLU!!! (sarcasm) The only ones that are challenged in public schools are those in special higher level classes (space is scarce).

 

Both of our political parties have done a terrible job on building up the debt. The acceleration in domestic social spending has been constant. The only thing that has varied is the amount of revenues coming in. This has mainly depended on the amount of economic growth, not tax cuts or defense spending as some say.

 

So you agree with me on welfare reform and less social spending?
The good thing is the economy is coming back strong. I don't know if you're Dem., Rep., or independent; but I think it is wrong to blame Bush for the economy's fall after 9/11. It was partly that and the downturn left over from the dotcom companies falling, etc. at the end of Clinton's turn.
I do think tax cuts are a good idea for everyone. I just wish that they would stop spending so much.
It reminds me of when credit was first introduced right before the Great Depression, and everyone went way over their means.

 

Sorry, I know these quotes reach back a ways, but...

I heard that the story above (1st quote) was false.

The electoral college is more important than the majority, because the electoral college is representative of the majority (higher representation). The democrats made a much bigger deal about this than needed. It would have been quieted if it had been the other way around (biased American media). His approval ratings are over 50%, which means that most people (majority) are fine with his being president. The only ones who bring the subject of the 2000 election up anymore are whiny democrats who want a sympathy vote.
How can there be a dictator when there is a Congress and a Supreme Court (judicial system). Checks and balances system, my Canadian friend. The power of the American gov't is balanced in 3 branches. Executive is only 1 of 3.

 

Here is the deal with the Bush tax cuts.

During Reagans administration taxes were cut, two years later the economy began to boom.

During Bush Sr. administration he also cut taxes, two years later the same effect took place.

Now Bush Jr. did the same thing, two years later our recession ended and the economy is on the rise again.


(the recession in the US only lasted 4 months according to most annalists)

 

Thanks for the info, Jas. Glad to see I'm not the only one of us two posting anything.