You know, I really don't know where to start in replying to the above post from bio1716, or if it is even worth it.
First of all, I have met enough Canadians to know that you are not representative of Canadian people en masse (just as Moore and Kerry are not representative of Americans), for several reasons:
1. Every Canuck I know can spell
2. Every Canuck I know can use punctuation and grammar above an illiterate 8-year-old's level
3. Nearly every Canuck I know is friendly and personable (not EVERY, since there are still French-Canadians ;))
4. I have yet to meet a Canadian that wants to actively sabotage the freedom, prosperity, and national security of their neighbor, the US. The collapse of the United States as a world power (or collapse completely as a nation) would only serve to endanger them as well. I believe that electing Kerry could push us to that very point.
I realize that this is anecdotal evidence, and does not mean that I have met a fair cross-section of the Canadian population, but it is strong evidence nonetheless. We have people that share your opinion in the US, but they are obviously in the minority (Kerry LOST THE ELECTION).
The most important thing I think everyone on these boards must understand is that calling someone names because of what they believe in does not get your point across or convince anyone to join your side. It only gets people's ire up and accomplishes nothing. If someone actually switches sides because of others bullying them into it, they believe in nothing.
I will address just a few of your points because I have neither the time nor the patience to address the more ludicrous claims (how do I choose...).
First of all, Bush's tax cut was not "for the rich" as you and Moore and the Democrat Party say (and possibly even believe). It's true--rich people got a tax cut. Poor people (those who pay taxes) got a tax cut. Everyone in the middle got a tax cut. Rich people pay more in taxes than you and I make in a year put together. They should get a cut just as I should. Reagan (and Kennedy before him) PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt that tax cuts grow the economy, and the Gov't collects more money. Happens every time it's tried. Check the figures for yourself.
Second, Bush was never AWOL. CBS got that smacked in their collective face when they tried to prove that lie with forged documents.
Third, we didn't go to Iraq to "kill babies and women" as so many of you claim. This idea of "why should 60'000 iraqis die for the sake of stopping a crime they haven't even committed yet" is absolute crap. The US military (of which I am a proud member) is being more careful than you would like to believe about SAFEGUARDING civilians and preventing casualties. If that were not the case, we could have ended this war in a matter of minutes with a MOAB on Baghdad. I bet the survivors would come running to the table talking "peace". But, that's not the case. Our intent in Iraq is to show the rest of the Arab world what can happen to the populace when they are given the freedom you and I enjoy. The elections over the weekend prove this. The terrorists are fighting US soldiers and Marines, and not doing well. When you compound that with the fact that the Iraqi people are so hellbent on voting that they will not be scared off by threats of violence, they're finished. The Iraqi people at large LOVE US, and are going to enjoy freedom for the first time in their lives. You won't see that on the news, because most of the journalists want to see us fail so they can say, "Toldya you shoulda voted for Kerry!" Don't believe me? Go there for yourself, or ask any military member returning from there.
As far as Bush visiting the tsunami debris...it's not his country. It would be horribly unsafe for him to visit a Muslim country in chaos (especially when our own media has falsely portrayed him as fighting a war against ISLAM). The US citizenry...PRIVATE citizenry...has donated 10 times as much money, food, and supplies to tsunami victims as everyone else on Earth combined (yes, even including the almighty Useless Nations). That is a statistical fact (as of last weekend--it may have changed) you can actually look up. It's also traditionally inappropriate for a foreign leader to go to a disaster site--it gives people the impression that the home nation's leader is ineffective. Condolences and support (financial, moral, and nutritional) are proper and sufficient.
Number of jobs lost under Bush: 600,000
Number of jobs created under Bush: 3,000,000 and counting
Anytime technology advances, old jobs are edged out. You know what replaces them? New jobs. Case closed.
Lastly, regarding abortion and war:
From Bush's own words (paraphrasing, and I happen to agree), it is a matter of guilt and innocence. It is NOT incongruous to simultaneously be Pro-life and Pro-death penalty. It is a matter of giving them a chance. There is nothing more innocent than an unborn child. There is nothing more guilty than a murderer. We gave you a chance, and you killed people. Now you die. Same with the terrorists and their allies. You could have been a good person, but you chose evil. Bush is trying to protect our country, and by extension yours, from outside forces trying to harm us. They have already demonstrated intent, opportunity, and capability to harm us. Those are the three prerequisites for use of deadly force by the US military. They are guilty. Those fighting for them are guilty. The guilty must be punished. End of story.
I am sure I will be inundated with mindless slogans and hate speech for this, but facts don't lie. Every statement I have made, with the exceptions of my own opinions, can be fact-checked and verified. I challenge you to do this with ALL information you receive, even...no...ESPECIALLY when you hear it from the failing Democrat Party.
reply
share
conquistadora_92
19 years ago
"Anytime technology advances, old jobs are edged out. You know what replaces them? New jobs."
This statement is actually true, but a politician cannot come out and say, "we're going to lose some jobs, but new jobs in new technology sectors will arise and help us in the long run." Tell that to the unions.
To lose jobs and have new ones created is a natural and necessary part of a healthy economy's evolution. It's the only way an economy stays on top. Without that evolution, you end up with something like Cuba. Generally, the more an economy is beholden to socialist governments and unions, the less economic advancement there can be. (Again, generally, not always.)
Also, leftist economic ideologies often repel the best personnel in a given industry. For example, European doctors (me included) have migrated to the U.S. for better opportunities. They don't want to earn regulated government wages. And governments do a poor job of promoting medical technology.
Europe has done a pretty nice job of finding a balance between socialist economic components and prosperity. Neverless, with their high taxation rates holding them down, it's difficult to match the prosperity level of the U.S.
reply
share
Sniktad
17 years ago
Economic advancement for who?
All I see is the rich getting obscenely rich, while the poor get poorer, and the middle class slowly creeping towards the bottom, unless they take up 2 or 3 jobs.
reply
share
gerty_i_am
19 years ago
You can tell by only reading a little of what "haggicide's" says that he is a republican for a couple good reasons:
1. The nickname haggicide----- more killing, more deaths (no matter if it is a joke or not)
2. How evil you are---- making fun of bio1716's grammar despite the great points he made which were very intelligent and true, unlike yours!
3. Your points are ill-regarded and false in many aspects (just one example----"Number of jobs lost under Bush: 600,000"------ actually, over 1.2 million {go to factcheck.org}---- actually just go to any nuetral site)
4. Your views of the rest of the world and America are close-minded and self-indulgent (when you said we were SAFEGUARDING civilians, I believe you should have said "killing and taking over their government without consent from the country in general {i.e. Democracy}")
5. You try to make points and end up embarrasing youself (ex. Bush)
reply
share
conquistadora_92
19 years ago
It's difficult to accurately tabulate job loss or job gains.
We know that the unemployment rate in the U.S. has steadily been 4-5% for the last 20 years or so.
4-5% of a given population will give you a certain figure. If your population rises, the figure (the number produced by 4-5%) will rise.
For example, if my town had 100,000 people in the work force in 1990 and the unemployment rate was 5%, then that means 5,000 people in my town are unemployed. Let's say by the year 2000, my town's labor force has grown to 300,000. The unemployment rate is still 5%, and now I have 15,000 people unemployed -- it appears my town has "lost" 10,000 jobs.
Bending it the other way, it's kind of like how Bill Clinton can say he "created" 20 million jobs. Again, the employment rate has always been about 4-5%.
So what's the inverse of 4-5% unemployment? It's approximately 95% employment. During Clinton's 8-year term, the U.S. grew from roughly 250 million to 275 million, for a growth of 25 million.
And what's a 95% employment rate of 25 million? The answer is 20 million. There are your "jobs created."
Politicians argue about these figures day and night, yet few people seem to have figured it out.
Stats are just terrible indicators, especially when they come from politicians or professors who are trying to sway your point of view.
For instance, a politician might say that 30% of Americans are without health care. The assumption is that 30% of the population is too poor to pay for health care. The statistic never considers human factors, such as the possibility that someone might decline insurance, or that wealthy people may not want to pay for insurance, etc.
Fidel Castro says 100% of his citizens have access to health care. But what does "access" mean? If they give you a bandage for a broken arm, yeah, technically, you've been given access to health care. But the statistics do not measure health care quality, innovation, etc.
Back to employment/unemployment: The only way to tell if your country has an unemployment problem is if you, yourself, are out of a job.
p.s. Sorry for the long post! Hope it wasn't too boring.
reply
share
zzedzdead
19 years ago
Actually, I thought your post was very interesting and informative.
What I do find funny about the previous post is that his criticisms of haggicide are indicative of the logic on that side of the political spectrum. He claims the arguments are not "intelligent or true". Funny, compared to the rant that Haggicide was responding to, his arguments were VERY intelligent and true, they just weren't emotional. I've come to the realization that, as far as the left is concerned, it's not fact and logic that matter, it's emotion. Just look at Fahrenheit 9/11 for example.
reply
share
conquistadora_92
19 years ago
I just think conservatives are severely misunderstood.
Minimum wage is a great example. Liberals support a hike in minimum wage because they argue that it helps the lower income earners. You never hear the conservative argument, which is that a higher minimum wage hurts lower income earners by creating unemployment. (The unemployment is created because the wage hike puts economic strain on employers -- they have to make cuts in the form of layoffs.)
I'm not advocating either position. I'm just saying there are compelling arguments on both the liberal and conservative sides.
Conservatives are such easy targets because, superficially, many of their views seem callous and outrightly cruel: conservatives are against minimum wage, conservatives fight with labor unions, etc.
I'd agree with your comment about Fahrenheit 9/11. Michael Moore uses sophisticated propaganda tactics. I'll put it that way. ;o)
Personally, I don't think Michael Moore will last because his deception will catch up to him, and he'll lose credibility.
Again, I'm not attacking liberal ideology. I think it's great that Moore promotes a liberal point of view. But he doesn't need to use political propaganda and trickery to get his ideas across.
It can be done, right?
reply
share
flumpmonkey-1
17 years ago
"Minimum wage is a great example. Liberals support a hike in minimum wage because they argue that it helps the lower income earners. You never hear the conservative argument, which is that a higher minimum wage hurts lower income earners by creating unemployment. (The unemployment is created because the wage hike puts economic strain on employers -- they have to make cuts in the form of layoffs.)"
"I'd agree with your comment about Fahrenheit 9/11. Michael Moore uses sophisticated propaganda tactics. I'll put it that way. ;o)
Personally, I don't think Michael Moore will last because his deception will catch up to him, and he'll lose credibility.
Again, I'm not attacking liberal ideology. I think it's great that Moore promotes a liberal point of view. But he doesn't need to use political propaganda and trickery to get his ideas across."
Unfortunately, employment is at an all-time high, our economy is trillions in debt, people are dying every day in Iraq fighting a war based on lies (please don't make me whip out the sources on this; read a damn Washington Post or something), and the president is asking for more money while not even considering a pullout from Iraq. A simple question: if we're not pulling out, what are we staying for? There must be some veeery good reason to keep thousands of American soldiers across seas fighting against a force that has infiltrated the country so deeply, we may have no choice than to nuke the whole thing to win. HEEEEY! THERE'S an idea. Let's cap off this sh*tty presidency with a big bang.
I'm tired of fighting this man. As Americans we have lost our war against our own judgment, but the best thing to do is pick up the pieces and move on.
I'm tired of being silent. Who gives a *beep* if Michael Moore is a hypocrite when it comes to how he lives or where he sends his kids to school? He lives in America, with the rest of the hypocrites, and the world as well, where fallibility reigns. The point is, he uncovered certain truths about Bush, things that didn't matter so much (like his skirting through the political world with family help; lord knows he's not the first to do it and won't be the last) and things that did...like his ties with Al Qaeda, his foreknowledge about terrorist threats, and most of all, his continued abuse of power to gain a fearful kind of respect America's people and Congress, not to mention from any smaller countries that showed the slightest hint of power, which he later used to either form bullsh*t coalitions or bully so much that they eventually turned a deaf ear to us (and as much sh*t as we give so many European countries over here, the fact is that their diplomacy at this point is far superior to our own.)
I'm *beep* sick of listening to people still defending Bush after EVERYTHING that has happened to this country. We are dying in Iraq, in our own streets from poverty, from failed Medicare and failed welfare and failed economy in general, but there is a worse fate we are facing: we are DIVIDED. Never has America been so turned against herself than now, when we must be stronger than history has ever called for. *beep* the Democrats, *beep* the Republicans, but more importantly, *beep* the Bushwhackers and the Bushbackers. It's over. We have lost our dignity and honor like we have never lost it before, and the whole world knows it. STOP FIGHTING YOUR BROTHERS. We accomplish nothing but to make ourselves into the very "jackasses" we fight against, or so we call them. I can never expect peace to come, but there was a time when fighting for peace, or this ideal of "peace", was enough to enlighten America more brilliantly than any country in history, young as she was.
I have so much more to say, but I'm tired.
Our country is not a lost cause.
reply
share