Right-Wingers Here...

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 17th, 2004, 2:25 am

It didn't take me long to notice the conservative sentiment in this board... What leads you guys to that particular side of the political spectrum?

Sumpin_Wong · Post by **Sumpin_Wong** » August 17th, 2004, 9:02 pm

I thought these were forums for Computer help... Why are we discussing politics any? I don't get it

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » August 17th, 2004, 9:08 pm

THis is the cafe, we can discuss anything hear

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » August 17th, 2004, 11:34 pm

What leads me to the right side of the spectrum ...

Contemporary liberalism supports distribution of wealth, which is obserd. A man who works hard and makes more money shouldn't have to pay of some bum who was too lazy to do any work to have money for health care, etc.

Also, today's liberals are clueless nuts, so I dont' see much reason in voting for them. By that I mean Gore, Kerry, (Ted) Kennedy, Edwards, and the Clintons.

What you just have to accept at a certain point is that everyone has their flaws, and if you bash Bush because he did one thing wrong, decide if Kerry would do a better job before you go voting for him.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 19th, 2004, 1:01 am

The Any Rand philosophy you stated in the first paragraph goes less toward liberalism and more toward socialism, which, in all fairness, is not the agenda of the democratic party. I don't believe any democrat has ever argued for anything concerning a 'distribution of wealth', unless you are speaking of taxes, in which case, a flat tax would be the best policy. Unfortunately, neither party accepts that premise, and Bush's latest Tax Cuts and Refunds have been shown to decrease the upper-class taxes by a disproportionate amount compared to middle and lower class taxes.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » August 19th, 2004, 1:10 am

I said contemporary liberalism for a reason and that is that in America today, liberal has become synonymous with Democrat, and Democrats support taxing the rich people higher for more social security funds. That's basically distribution of wealth. I think Bush also said something about the higher tax cuts on the wealthier helping the economy or something but I have no clue whether they would or not.

As for the Bush tax cuts, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the wealthier Americans paid a higher tax rate than the less wealthier, so it's not like they pay less than their fair share. Just as you said, though, a flat tax would work best.

Kerry and Edwards say what they say for votes, not because they believe it. Kerry has over half a billion dollars in stock with Heinz and Edwards has millions over law suits. (Not to say that Bush and Cheney are poor by any means.)

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 19th, 2004, 1:53 am

I agree, in our bipolar society liberal means democrat (And if you're a crazy nut then you're for the Green Party) and conservative means republican.

I don't understand the importance of Kerry's investment in Heinz ketchup, especially when dompared against Bush's oil investments and (my god) Cheney's involvement in Halliburton. It isn't as though the Kerry administration, if elected, would award an $11 Billion Contract to Heinz without contest as Bush/Cheney did to Halliburton.

I don't understand how Bush can hand out tax cuts to the people of the US while giving away those very same funds without searching for a cheaper alternative, it all adds up to the massive deficit piling up under our feet.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » August 19th, 2004, 1:56 am

Well, as I said. I didn't mean to imply that Bush and Cheney were poor.

With deficits, it'd be better to let those build up some than to weaken the economy or succumb to terrorists. There is no perfect way to run the country because each one will have its problems.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 20th, 2004, 2:14 am

In my opinion, the problems that have arisen during this presidency, those of increased terrorism, poor economy and guerilla warfare in Iraq, are the result of bad management. What bugs me is that conservatives do not refuse to accept the mistakes their president made, they only dismiss them as human or as proof that Bush is a normal person. That, in my opinion, is an offence against the people of the nation. There is nothing worse than being complacent in the face of avoidable mistakes, mistakes like the war in Iraq. That, to me, should weigh heavily on everyone's mind this November.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » August 20th, 2004, 2:35 am

Well, what would President Suvorov done if the CIA told him that a man known to aid Al Quaida had WMD's?

I'd prefer it if Bush could apologize for the bad intelligence and the Iraq mistakes, but all it would do at this point is make him look weak, so he has to stick with what he's been doing all along which is saying that at least we've removed a brutal dictator who had been mass murdering his people, despite the face we didn't find the WMD's.

As for increased terrorism, it hasn't really increased, it's just that Bush got the 9/11 attacks. You could say, though, that the terrorism has significantly decreased since three quarters of Al Quaida's leadership has been captured.

And as for the economy, the problems early on in Bush's term were caused by Clinton's management. In the past year and a half, 1.5 million jobs have been created, not quite enough thought to make up for the jobs that were lot earlier on, but like I said, that was because of Clinton's management.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 20th, 2004, 3:04 am

Well, first off, President Suvorov would not have advised CIA Director George Tenet to look at options for invading Iraq in the first 3 months of his office. President Suvorov would not have entered office expecting, nay, planning to invade Iraq. President Suvorov would not have misled his nation to believe that Al-Qaeda and Iraq were partners in Terrorism, a claim based on a single(!) report from an unreliable source. If a single piece of evidence is not sufficient enough to try someone in court, it CANNOT be sufficient to wage an international war on. Yet, because of a misguided populace who believed bad intelligence and bad decision making by our leaders, we did just that. Who in this nation is more responsible for war, in times like these that don't require a congressional declaration, than our President. Looking weak? I would take a government of weaklings over a government lead by ignorance and violence like ours.

But moving on, yes, the instance of global terrorism has risen under President Bush's tenure. Even after the war on Afghanistan was waged, severing the Taliban's leadership, global terrorism has increased. This includes places like Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Phillipines, places where the radical muslim sheiks propagate a myth of a war hungry America that, because of President Bush, becomes more and more a reality every day. Terrorism doesn't rely on it's leadership, it feeds on ignorance and hate of their youth.

As for the economy, a budget surplus doesn't sound like poor management, that sounds like intelligent government budget.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » August 20th, 2004, 9:35 pm

Suvorov wrote:Well, first off, President Suvorov would not have advised CIA Director George Tenet to look at options for invading Iraq in the first 3 months of his office. President Suvorov would not have entered office expecting, nay, planning to invade Iraq.

And that is because Clinton would have told you (as he told Bush) that Saddam Hussein was one of the top three threats for national security when he left office, right?

Suvorov wrote:President Suvorov would not have misled his nation to believe that Al-Qaeda and Iraq were partners in Terrorism, a claim based on a single(!) report from an unreliable source.

Would you honestly have thought that a radical Islamic leader such as Saddam would not have given WMD's to Al Quaida if he had them. Saddam was known to, on several occasions, aid the terrorists. And I said aid the terrorists, not aid with September 11.

Suvorov wrote:If a single piece of evidence is not sufficient enough to try someone in court, it CANNOT be sufficient to wage an international war on.

Ok?? According to intelligence in early 2003, Iraq had WMD's and a brutal dictator. We now know that they had only the second.

Suvorov wrote:Yet, because of a misguided populace who believed bad intelligence and bad decision making by our leaders, we did just that. Who in this nation is more responsible for war, in times like these that don't require a congressional declaration, than our President. Looking weak? I would take a government of weaklings over a government lead by ignorance and violence like ours.

Think back to what happened to Olympic players from Iraq when Saddam was in control. Think about the amount of chemical weapons we've found in Iraq that Saddam used on his own people. Think about the day the Iraqis in Baghdad tore down the Saddam statue. Even without WMD's, would you have left the Iraqis with what they had under Saddam?

Suvorov wrote:But moving on, yes, the instance of global terrorism has risen under President Bush's tenure. Even after the war on Afghanistan was waged, severing the Taliban's leadership, global terrorism has increased. This includes places like Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Phillipines, places where the radical muslim sheiks propagate a myth of a war hungry America that, because of President Bush, becomes more and more a reality every day. Terrorism doesn't rely on it's leadership, it feeds on ignorance and hate of their youth.

Bush had a choice after September 11. To go after Al Quaida or not. Not going after them would mean more attacks and appearing weak as a country, and going after them would mean angering the radical Muslims. If we do not fight an aggressive war on terror, our enemies will be able to attack us again.

Suvorov wrote:As for the economy, a budget surplus doesn't sound like poor management, that sounds like intelligent government budget.

Perhaps if Clinton would have put some extra money into the economy it wouldn't have weakened after he left. Whether you agree with Bush's policies or not, at least he's doing something about the economy.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 20th, 2004, 11:55 pm

As for the economy you have to understand that job loss is the last effect of a bad economy. The economic decline started the summer before the 2000 elections while Clinton was still in office. As I said before job loss comes last so when the job loss came around it was during Bush's term. As the same with job loss comming last job creation comes last in an economic recovery.

In the past year and a half, 1.5 million jobs have been created

That means the economy has competly turned around.
Now for Iraq, the government has been trying to find a way to rid Sadaam from Iraq, but could never find an opening. When 9/11 came along we went into Afganistan and such, then we got evidence of Iraq having WMD's. We invaded with the intelligence that Iraq had these weapons. Now the democrats are saying we invaded because we wanted to trying to trick us, i believe. Yes it turns out we had faulty intelligence. But the democrats are making it look like it was done on purpose and yes it was because they believed at taht time Iraq had wmd's

Ever since the beginning of the Clinton Administration the Democrats made some big restrictions to the point that the CIA couldn't do as much as it historicly could do. For this reason people say its the democrats fault for 9/11.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 21st, 2004, 12:15 am

Another of those "Top 3" threats you mentioned earlier was Terrorism, though Bush never attended a single intelligence hearing on that before 9/11, which, to me, is either a sign that Bush didn't recognize al-qaeda as a threat or didn't listen to Clinton in the first place. In fact, Clinton's team had built a plan late in his term to attack al-qaeda (As mentioned in Richard Clarkes' book, Against All Enemies), but Bush and his team, especially the hawk Rumsfeld, ignored it and Clinton's warnings completely.

Saddam is no Radical Islamic Leader. He is a secular dictator, he made his Baath Party to replace Islam and his face to replace God's, much like Stalin. Saddam would never give WMD's to terrorist first because he was a self-obsessed madman and second because they most likely would have used them on him. But that's just speculation. All I know is, the list of nations with WMD's extends far beyond just Iraq. Iran and North Korea, for example, could just as easily (And in Iran's case, far more easily) trade WMD to terrorists, yet we deal with those nations diplomatically.... Why the difference? It's a distinction one has to make if one wants to examine the real reasons for going to war. WMDs and Brutal Dictators are all over the Earth, my friend, this one has Oil and Family History.

Think back to Iraq before Saddam? Why not think of Saudi Arabia, whose women are beaten to death with rocks for cheating on their husbands and whose men are killed for stealing. Think of China, who executes more people per year than every other nation on Earth combined. Think of Sudan, whose people starve everyday because militias steal the food. Now say to me that our approach is the same in all of these countries, that we deal with each one exactly the same because of their brutal leadership. Not when Prince Bandar of the Saudi Royal family eats dinner at the White House and our president gives him the name 'Bandar Bush'.

Any President would have attacked Afghanistan after 9/11, only Bush would have attacked Iraq, a nation with no known ties to that incident.

I'd say that the events of 9/11 put serious trouble into the economy, but reckless spending by Bush has only torn open the wound of those attacks.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 21st, 2004, 12:22 am

I'd say that the events of 9/11 put serious trouble into the economy, but reckless spending by Bush has only torn open the wound of those attacks.

So how exactly did he tear open the wounds i mean we've had intrest rates at an all time low and alomst zero inflation.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 21st, 2004, 4:55 am

Low interest rates and no inflation are the signs of a dead economy. While they may be good for consumers, that's because the feds want you to spend more money to repay government debt. Didn't you guys take economics?

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » August 21st, 2004, 2:54 pm

The Interest rates are rising. Do either of you pay attention to the news?

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 21st, 2004, 5:34 pm

Yes, Interest rates are rising, slowly, from the record lows they reached.

I don't know what The_Man is trying to argue, but it doesn't make any sense. In a post which I didn't see earlier, he proposes that we were 'looking for an opening' to invade Iraq and get Saddam. My only question is, why? As I said before there are hundreds of dictators that are just as terrible (Many of whom have openly delared that they have WMD's), yet we treat them peacefullly, and, in some cases, cordially. What's the difference? What makes Iraq worthy of our son's, daughter's, and brother's lives?

And what's this about people blaming democrats for 9/11? No matter how messed up things are back here, 9/11 is not a partisan issue, my friend. We were attacked by a group who hates prosperity and open-mindedness.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 22nd, 2004, 6:33 am

Ok name the many of them who have openly declared wmd's besides North Korea. Oh and can you guess what Iraq sits on.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 22nd, 2004, 8:02 am

What? Rephrase that so that maybe I can actually decipher an argument.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 24th, 2004, 9:11 pm

As I said before there are hundreds of dictators that are just as terrible (Many of whom have openly delared that they have WMD's),

besides North Korea could you name a few of the "hundreds" of dictators that have wmd's

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 25th, 2004, 12:43 am

Low interest rates and no inflation are the signs of a dead economy. While they may be good for consumers, that's because the feds want you to spend more money to repay government debt.

hmmm low interest rates and low inflation is what an economy strives for number one, but by having such low interest rates that we have seen it allows the goverment to spend more money. if interest rates were higher teh goverment woudl have to pay more money of interest therefor spending less, but by haveing lower interest rates it can spend more money without putting the economy in turmoil. if the goverment had reckless spending and spent way more then they should have interest rates and inflation would rise.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 25th, 2004, 4:49 am

Never mind, The_Man, never mind. High Interest rates are a sign that the economy is robust and growing, a sure sign of a bullish market. Consumers want low interest rates because (duh) they mean cheaper interest rates on bank accounts/loans/mortgages etc...

And, if you examine my actual wording, I don't say hundreds of dictators have WMD's, I say that there are hundreds of dictators that are just as evil as Saddam and some of them may actually have WMD's.

If you are interested in an intelligent discussion, then please check your statements. I was very pleased with the discussion between Smartweb and I, because he would actually discuss valid questions with me. If you wish to do the same, then start now.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 27th, 2004, 12:07 am

As I said before there are hundreds of dictators that are just as terrible (Many of whom have openly delared that they have WMD's),

U clearly say that there are lots of dictators who have wmd's

I'm not very good with my history so i may be wroing but i think it was Carter who had high interest rates, i don't think his economy was to peachy.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 27th, 2004, 12:21 am

What is the point of Kerry's new job tax incintive, study shows 92% of the new jobs created would have been created anyway without the new job tax incintive under kerry's economic plan. Back to history agian, but also i think Carter tried new job tax incintive and it didn't work, so again why would kerry be doing it?

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 27th, 2004, 3:30 am

You are right, I said many have WMD's, which isn't a specific statement in terms of #'s but certainly involves more than just the 1, Saddam. My point was that Bush engaged in military action with a single nation, unprovoked, without rhyme or reason as to why Iraq was any more dangerous than North Korea or Iran or Syria or China or any other nation under a brutal dictatorial regime that is believed to have WMD's. My point was, in short, that the case for war against Iraq was over-inflated for empirical, economical reasons. As the man responsible for military power, President Bush is completely accountable for the quagmire that has developed.

As far as economic history I'm not too knowledgeable, but I believe that economic restrictions should be limited to copyright protection and a national flat-tax. Sure, there are pitfalls in Kerry's approach, and there is no way a 2-party system could possibly cater to everyone in our massive, diverse nation, but if practicality forces us to decide between Kerry and Bush, the choice to me is very, very clear. There is no choice worse than George W. Bush.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 28th, 2004, 5:00 am

Explain "Flat Tax" to me, I once knew but forgot, plus I'm a bit lazy. Anyway are you saying you want the "Flat Tax".

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 29th, 2004, 11:51 pm

A flat tax, to me, would be a single tax amount issued to everyone over 18. No deductions, and no tax percentages. But that's a completely theoretical idea, no modern nation would ever institute something like that.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 30th, 2004, 12:38 am

Thats not a good tax for the poor, or large families. Awsome for the rich though.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 30th, 2004, 8:33 pm

You're right, it isn't good for the poor and it is great for the rich. It isn't heartless, in my opinion, to demand the same from each and every person - in fact - that's the essence of equality. It's heartless to punish the rich and give the poor no reason to strive for better conditions - Government Welfare is money for nothing. I don't have a problem with charity, charity should be given by personal choice, but when the government uses the money it takes from me, after I paid higher taxes (for things like police, jails and schools), to pay for the livelihood of others who paid less taxes than me, it is injustice. Justice, in my opinion, is one of the highest values of human society.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 30th, 2004, 11:07 pm

We pay higher taxes because we can pay higher taxes. Its a lot easier for a person making a million dollars a year to pay a 30% tax then it is for a person making 24,000 dollars a year to pay a 15% or less tax. This is because the cost of living is not the cheapest thing in the world. Also the people on welfare don't really pay taxes probably because they don't make an income since they don't really care.

Yeah your right the flat tax would strive for equality, but Kerry is the one who wants to raise taxes on the rich. Democrats in the past has always wanted to raise a tax for teh poor or differently allocate funds for them to get better housing or something of somesort for them. The goverment has tried to make things better for the welfare people, but they never get better because the poor in that kind of situation just don't care, I know someone who sees this every day, the poor just don't care, so in a since Goverment Welfare is money for nothing.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 30th, 2004, 11:40 pm

Lol that's exactly what I said above, The-Man.

Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean they should have to. The rich owe no more to their nation than the poor, I would say, in fact, that the poor owe owe more to the nation than any other group. But in the interest of national equality, a flat-tax is the best option.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 30th, 2004, 11:48 pm

I know its what you just said, I just said it in a more Kerry Bashing form, if you can tell. Sure it may be a statement but i just, for some reason, have to compare it to what is going on now in politics.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 30th, 2004, 11:53 pm

Lol yeah, I know, but I just run aground on the idea that Kerry could be any worse than Bush. It just doesn't seem possible.... lol that's just me I'm a hippie. I've read some of Kerry's writing and it seems so well thought, so clear and concise, yet the media portrays him (As he does in his own manner) as a complicated dude. I've seen no evidence that Bush can even form an opinion in that head of his, he's so terrible at extemporaneous speaking.... lol no more arguments here I can't have 2 threads on the same thing when there's only one of me...

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 31st, 2004, 12:19 am

yeah, I don't really see Kerry as complicated, i wonder what the media is thinking, I just see him with his multiple ideas.