This man is a nuts

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

A happy, satisfied, and content person is not going to be obsessed with some person or group and be bashing the person or group every day. It's just not going to happen. A happy person has better things to do with their time.

... but you spend a lot of time bashing the left, Rupert... is there something you need to talk about? Sit here on the couch with me, tell me what's going on...

I'm sooooo teasing you, Rupert. I absolutely agree with you about some very poorly adjusted people displacing their anger onto other people. Mildred D Taylor put it well in "Roll of Thunder, Here My Cry" when one of her characters said something to the effect that people who have nothing still want to feel like they're better than someone else.

And Timm, from your mouth to God's ear about DD's 15 minutes being over, please! Yeesh.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

... but you spend a lot of time bashing the left, Rupert... is there something you need to talk about? Sit here on the couch with me, tell me what's going on...

I'm sooooo teasing you, Rupert. I absolutely agree with you about some very poorly adjusted people displacing their anger onto other people. Mildred D Taylor put it well in "Roll of Thunder, Here My Cry" when one of her characters said something to the effect that people who have nothing still want to feel like they're better than someone else.

And Timm, from your mouth to God's ear about DD's 15 minutes being over, please! Yeesh.

I know you were kidding, but in all seriousness I don't constantly bash anyone. As much as I despise Bin Laden, you don't see me obsessed with him and bashing him every day.

And with regard to politicians in this country, I think is totally ridiculous to bash one party. I think that most of the Democrtas in office are very similar to most of the Republicans in office. I don't think it makes a big difference whether Joe Biden is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee as compared to Orrin Hatch or whoever. They're both smart guys and their views are a lot more similar than different.

As I said in another post, the new House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes(D) wants to send 30,000 more troops to Iraq. It doesn't make a difference whether this guy is a Democrat or Republican. There is very little difference between the two parties. Most of these guys from both sides of the aisles are fairly capable individuals who are just trying to make a good decision. I have no idea if it would be a good idea to send 30,000 more troops or not. But if we do it and it doesn't work out, I wouldn't bash this guy. He's just trying to do what is best. Whether the decision turns out to be right or wrong, I wouldn't blame Reyes because I know he is a bright guy that is using his best judgement. That's all I can ask for.

I would say the same for the Bush Administration. Bush had what appeared to be one of the sharpest foreign policy teams ever assembled. They thought that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. They were a very bright team that used their best judgement. In hindsight, it looks like they made a bad decision. I'm not going to bash them for it though. If we had done nothing and then Saddam ended up with nuclear weapons in 10 years from now and he used them, we'd be asking why we didn't take him out when we could have back in 2001.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I know you were kidding, but in all seriousness I don't constantly bash anyone. As much as I despise Bin Laden, you don't see me obsessed with him and bashing him every day.

And with regard to politicians in this country, I think is totally ridiculous to bash one party. I think that most of the Democrtas in office are very similar to most of the Republicans in office. I don't think it makes a big difference whether Joe Biden is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee as compared to Orrin Hatch or whoever. They're both smart guys and their views are a lot more similar than different.

As I said in another post, the new House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes(D) wants to send 30,000 more troops to Iraq. It doesn't make a difference whether this guy is a Democrat or Republican. There is very little difference between the two parties. Most of these guys from both sides of the aisles are fairly capable individuals who are just trying to make a good decision. I have no idea if it would be a good idea to send 30,000 more troops or not. But if we do it and it doesn't work out, I wouldn't bash this guy. He's just trying to do what is best. Whether the decision turns out to be right or wrong, I wouldn't blame Reyes because I know he is a bright guy that is using his best judgement. That's all I can ask for.

I would say the same for the Bush Administration. Bush had what appeared to be one of the sharpest foreign policy teams ever assembled. They thought that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. They were a very bright team that used their best judgement. In hindsight, it looks like they made a bad decision. I'm not going to bash them for it though. If we had done nothing and then Saddam ended up with nuclear weapons in 10 years from now and he used them, we'd be asking why we didn't take him out when we could have back in 2001.

to whom did it appear this way??????????????????????????????????????

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I would say the same for the Bush Administration. Bush had what appeared to be one of the sharpest foreign policy teams ever assembled. They thought that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. They were a very bright team that used their best judgement. In hindsight, it looks like they made a bad decision. I'm not going to bash them for it though. If we had done nothing and then Saddam ended up with nuclear weapons in 10 years from now and he used them, we'd be asking why we didn't take him out when we could have back in 2001.

Rupert, I have to respectfully disagree. I think Bush's foreign policy team was driven by idealogy, not any sort of grasp of how things work in the real world. They were bound and determined on this course from the moment they got into office, and in their attempt to force Western-style democracy upon the Middle East they completely destroyed the infrastructure of one of the few semi-secular nations there (yes, yes, tyrant I know-- have you checked into human rights and Saudi Arabia lately? The human rights argument wears thin in light of with whom we choose to ally ourselves) and provided fertile breeding ground for terrorists motivated by religious zealotry, which, as we know, is a bad, bad thing. (Two churches burned down here in the USA recently by Christian zealots, by the way. Churches. Zealotry always bad.) And what about the post-invasion plan, or rather, complete lack of one? That wasn't an honest mistake, that was plain bad governing. And our soldiers are paying for it with their lives.

And I respectfully disagree on Dems and Repubs being the same on domestic issues. I think they are very far apart there. (Which is not to say I don't think that both sides come across as utterly useless on many occasions.. )

But hey, at least the Dems are bringing back the five-day workweek (well, really more of a four-and-a-half day week), instead of the three-day one the last Congress enjoyed. Not much, but it's a start. If they ditch the month vacation in August, I'll really know they're serious. For a Congress that claimed to be so anti-French, they sure liked to vacation like them...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

to whom did it appear this way??????????????????????????????????????

I don't know if you are kidding or not, but there are plenty of people in government in both parties who are very well respected on both sides of the aisle. For example, there are people in the Iraq Study Group such as Baker(R) and Warner(D) who are very well respected by both sides.

The new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is well respected on both sides of the aisle. He was just confrimed by a vote of 95-2.

You would have to say the same thing for both Cheney and Rumsfeld at the beginning of the Administration. Both of these guys had great reputations of being extremely sharp and capable guys. Cheney was the Secretary of Defense under Bush senior back in the 1980s. He was consdiered to have done an excellent job. I believe Rumsfeld was the Sec of Defense under Ford. I don't remember what the vote was in confirming Rumsfeld but I would guess that it was quite one-sided.

So to answer your question of according to who, I would say according to their peers on both sides of the aisle.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, I have to respectfully disagree. I think Bush's foreign policy team was driven by idealogy, not any sort of grasp of how things work in the real world. They were bound and determined on this course from the moment they got into office, and in their attempt to force Western-style democracy upon the Middle East they completely destroyed the infrastructure of one of the few semi-secular nations there (yes, yes, tyrant I know-- have you checked into human rights and Saudi Arabia lately? The human rights argument wears thin in light of with whom we choose to ally ourselves) and provided fertile breeding ground for terrorists motivated by religious zealotry, which, as we know, is a bad, bad thing. (Two churches burned down here in the USA recently by Christian zealots, by the way. Churches. Zealotry always bad.) And what about the post-invasion plan, or rather, complete lack of one? That wasn't an honest mistake, that was plain bad governing. And our soldiers are paying for it with their lives.

And I respectfully disagree on Dems and Repubs being the same on domestic issues. I think they are very far apart there. (Which is not to say I don't think that both sides come across as utterly useless on many occasions.. )

But hey, at least the Dems are bringing back the five-day workweek (well, really more of a four-and-a-half day week), instead of the three-day one the last Congress enjoyed. Not much, but it's a start. If they ditch the month vacation in August, I'll really know they're serious. For a Congress that claimed to be so anti-French, they sure liked to vacation like them...

I agree with you somewhat. I agree with you that they wanted to get rid of Saddam from Day 1, but they were hardly the only ones. As I've said before, Kerry had advocated invading Iraq and removing Saddam back in 1999. So it is quite possible that a Democratic President would have done the same thing.

With regard to domestic policy, I don't think the parties are all that different. I don't notice big changes domestically depending which party is in power.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know if you are kidding or not, but there are plenty of people in government in both parties who are very well respected on both sides of the aisle. For example, there are people in the Iraq Study Group such as Baker(R) and Warner(D) who are very well respected by both sides.

The new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is well respected on both sides of the aisle. He was just confrimed by a vote of 95-2.

You would have to say the same thing for both Cheney and Rumsfeld at the beginning of the Administration. Both of these guys had great reputations of being extremely sharp and capable guys. Cheney was the Secretary of Defense under Bush senior back in the 1980s. He was consdiered to have done an excellent job. I believe Rumsfeld was the Sec of Defense under Ford. I don't remember what the vote was in confirming Rumsfeld but I would guess that it was quite one-sided.

So to answer your question of according to who, I would say according to their peers on both sides of the aisle.

Uh, Rupert, we werent talking about right NOW. We were talking about 2001. This was the quote I replied to:

I would say the same for the Bush Administration. Bush had what appeared to be one of the sharpest foreign policy teams ever assembled.

Baker IS an extremely capable man. Unfortunately, Baker was not apart of this all star foreign policy team that you were referring too. He entered the picture after the damage had already been done and despite being urged, Bush never put him in in place of Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld had a reputation for being extremely smart and capable? Are you joking? He had a reputation for being with the Carlyle group for 20 years. LOL. Rumsfeld pissed off many from the minute he walked through the door of this administration.

Cheney? You mean the twice convicted Drunk driver? Or the guy that had FIVE draft deferments? He had an agenda and that he was capable only of war and NOT of diplomacy of any kind. Again, capable in the eyes of whom?

Colin Powell? He was a tremendous failure and completely unqualified for the job. His asset was his popularity within our country and that doesnt help too much in dealings abroad.

What is the common denominator? All these men had defense backgrounds. And this is what you call one of the finest foreign policy teams ever assembled? The agenda was war and that was all these guys were good for. and as it turns out, they werent very good at that.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Uh, Rupert, we werent talking about right NOW. We were talking about 2001. This was the quote I replied to:

I would say the same for the Bush Administration. Bush had what appeared to be one of the sharpest foreign policy teams ever assembled.

Baker IS an extremely capable man. Unfortunately, Baker was not apart of this all star foreign policy team that you were referring too. He entered the picture after the damage had already been done and despite being urged, Bush never put him in in place of Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld had a reputation for being extremely smart and capable? Are you joking? He had a reputation for being with the Carlyle group for 20 years. LOL. Rumsfeld pissed off many from the minute he walked through the door of this administration.

Cheney? You mean the twice convicted Drunk driver? Or the guy that had FIVE draft deferments? He had an agenda and that he was capable only of war and NOT of diplomacy of any kind. Again, capable in the eyes of whom?

Colin Powell? He was a tremendous failure and completely unqualified for the job. His asset was his popularity within our country and that doesnt help too much in dealings abroad.

What is the common denominator? All these men had defense backgrounds. And this is what you call one of the finest foreign policy teams ever assembled? The agenda was war and that was all these guys were good for. and as it turns out, they werent very good at that.

I was not implying that Baker is part of Bush's team. I was just giving him as an example of a person that is well respected to see if you would at least agree with that, which you do. Then I was saying that I think that Cheney and Rumsfeld were very well respected too. I guess we disagree on that. I think we disagree about Powell too. I think he was very well respected at the time. Powell was hardly a controversial figure. He was one of those guys that everyone liked. He was considered to have a done a great job as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the first Persian Gulf War. He was Stormin' Norman's boss.

By the way, what was the confirmation vote on Rumsfeld when Bush named him as sec of Defense? I don't think there was much opposition to him.

I don't know if you are aware how successful Rumsfeld has been in the private sector. He was brought in as CEO at a few different companies that were not doing well. He totally turned these companies around. He couldn't be any more successful. I believe he's worth well over $100 million. If you don't think he's an extremely bright guy, you are kidding yourself.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree with you somewhat. I agree with you that they wanted to get rid of Saddam from Day 1, but they were hardly the only ones. As I've said before, Kerry had advocated invading Iraq and removing Saddam back in 1999. So it is quite possible that a Democratic President would have done the same thing.

With regard to domestic policy, I don't think the parties are all that different. I don't notice big changes domestically depending which party is in power.

As soon as Clinton was in office he pushed through the (at the time) Dem Congress a tax increase on the wealthy, and as soon as Bush was in Congress he pushed through the Republican Congress a big tax decrease on the wealthy (for all of his selective selection of families to show in TV, most of his tax cuts have gone to the richest Americans). I'd say that's a pretty big difference, wouldn't you? Dems seem to prefer to stay out of people's private lives; Republicans seem to want to legislate it. I'd say that's a pretty big difference too, wouldn't you? "Bankruptcy reform" which affects mostly poor and middle class (over 50 percent of bankruptcies are declared due to costs associated with a medical condition, for example), was pushed through by Republicans, fought against by Dems during Bush's reign. That's a pretty big difference, wouldn't you say?

Nothing in your post to Dalakani is persuasive about Bush's team being capable; just popular. The only one you can unequivocally say was competant is Baker, and as Dalakani pointed out, he's only been brought in now that Bush has made a complete mess of foreign policy. Isn't it funny that the man who campaigned on bringing the grownups back to the White House is now being portrayed in political cartoons as a bratty little kid, being shoved out of the room while Daddy and his friends take charge?

Saying Kerry "might" have invaded Iraq if he'd been in office is like me saying the World Trade Center "might" still be standing if Gore had been appointed Pres by the Supreme Court. We don't know, and with so many dead Americans resulting from both circumstances, it's nothing other than heartbreaking to even speculate on. Because we'll never know.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

As soon as Clinton was in office he pushed through the (at the time) Dem Congress a tax increase on the wealthy, and as soon as Bush was in Congress he pushed through the Republican Congress a big tax decrease on the wealthy (for all of his selective selection of families to show in TV, most of his tax cuts have gone to the richest Americans). I'd say that's a pretty big difference, wouldn't you? Dems seem to prefer to stay out of people's private lives; Republicans seem to want to legislate it. I'd say that's a pretty big difference too, wouldn't you? "Bankruptcy reform" which affects mostly poor and middle class (over 50 percent of bankruptcies are declared due to costs associated with a medical condition, for example), was pushed through by Republicans, fought against by Dems during Bush's reign. That's a pretty big difference, wouldn't you say?

Nothing in your post to Dalakani is persuasive about Bush's team being capable; just popular. The only one you can unequivocally say was competant is Baker, and as Dalakani pointed out, he's only been brought in now that Bush has made a complete mess of foreign policy. Isn't it funny that the man who campaigned on bringing the grownups back to the White House is now being portrayed in political cartoons as a bratty little kid, being shoved out of the room while Daddy and his friends take charge?

Saying Kerry "might" have invaded Iraq if he'd been in office is like me saying the World Trade Center "might" still be standing if Gore had been appointed Pres by the Supreme Court. We don't know, and with so many dead Americans resulting from both circumstances, it's nothing other than heartbreaking to even speculate on. Because we'll never know.

When it comes to taxes, one group wants the wealthiest Americans to pay 38% in federal taxes while the other group wants them to pay 35%. Sure there is a difference, but it's not that huge of a difference. If you were telling someone from another country what the difference is between the mainstream Dems and the mainstream Repubs when it comes to taxes, I think they would be surprised how similar the two parties are.

I have to disagree with you about your contention that Repubs want to get into people's private lives while the Dems don't. Can you give some examples? Sure there are some Repubs that are against abortion, but that's the only one I can think of, and I'm not sure if most people would call that interfering in people's private lives any more than many of the other laws out there. There are a lot of new anti-smoking laws out there. Some people may argue that these new anti-smoking laws invade our personal lives. The truth of the matter is that most laws have an effect on our personal freedom. That's just reality. If you live in a civilized society, you don't have unlimited freedom. There are tons of laws that restrict your freedom. By the way, I commend the Democrats for championing these anti-smoking laws. If I go to a restaurant for dinner, I don't want to be breathing some guy's smoke from the next table.

I have to disagree with your contention that Bush's foreing policy team was popular but not capable. If you look at the resumes and track records of those people, I don't know how you could argue this. As I said before, Powell was very successful as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs back in the late 1980s. Cheney was very successful as Sec of Defense. Rumsfeld had an impeccable resume, both in the public and private sector. What else do we have to go on besides a person's track record?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

When it comes to taxes, one group wants the wealthiest Americans to pay 38% in federal taxes while the other group wants them to pay 35%. Sure there is a difference, but it's not that huge of a difference. If you were telling someone from another country what the difference is between the mainstream Dems and the mainstream Repubs when it comes to taxes, I think they would be surprised how similar the two parties are.

I have to disagree with you about your contention that Repubs want to get into people's private lives while the Dems don't. Can you give some examples? Sure there are some Repubs that are against abortion, but that's the only one I can think of, and I'm not sure if most people would call that interfering in people's private lives any more than many of the other laws out there. There are a lot of new anti-smoking laws out there. Some people may argue that these new anti-smoking laws invade our personal lives. The truth of the matter is that most laws have an effect on our personal freedom. That's just reality. If you live in a civilized society, you don't have unlimited freedom. There are tons of laws that restrict your freedom. By the way, I commend the Democrats for championing these anti-smoking laws. If I go to a restaurant for dinner, I don't want to be breathing some guy's smoke from the next table.

I have to disagree with your contention that Bush's foreing policy team was popular but not capable. If you look at the resumes and track records of those people, I don't know how you could argue this. As I said before, Powell was very successful as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs back in the late 1980s. Cheney was very successful as Sec of Defense. Rumsfeld had an impeccable resume, both in the public and private sector. What else do we have to go on besides a person's track record?

Rupert, Bush and his Republican Congress wanted to slash taxes on capital gains (as it is, they cut them to 15 percent, I believe). The people who benefit most from a cut in capital gains tax are wealthy people who live off investments. The majority of stock in the country is held by a relatively small number of people. Trickle-down economics is a Republican creation (and if you ask me, anyone who has ever worked for gratuities could have told you it was a crock because they tell me the rich tend to be the crummiest tippers). Right now, the rich pay considerably less in taxes as a percentage of their total income that the middle-class due to the cuts in the capital gains tax and assorted other breaks the Republicans have given them. You think that's not a big difference? That 35 vs. 39 percent stat is on earned income from a job, not stocks or other things you don't actually have to do any work for.

The drive to outlaw abortion is in the Republican party plank; it's not a fringe belief of a few members. (Of course, there's no plank pushing for increased availability of daycare or easy access to contraceptives for women). In addition, it's Republicans who have fought against Plan B being available over the counter, and opposed making the HPV vaccine available. "Sodomy" was a crime in Texas (Republican controlled) until just a few years ago, when the Supreme Court struck it down, much to the fury of the dissenting conservative justices on the court. What party do you think they vote? And Terri Schiavo, of course. (You are aware the video tape oft cited was cut together from hours and hours of material, and the sections of Terri staring off blankly while her mom pleaded with her to look at her were not shown to the public?) How abut the one-and-a-half BILLION dollar initiative to pressure single Americans to get married and for married Americans in bad marriages to stay married. You remember that one, don't you? Is that a good start for you?

Oh, and the abstinence-only education in public schools. Withholding factual information is also interfering in private lives.

Look, I'll actually give you that Rumsfeld in a different time and with a different President was decent at his job. But when the people in charge were, even before the invasion, saying pretty blatantly that there was no plan for afterwards because we'd be "greeted as liberators" (right, Cheney. You keep smoking that particular weed), I think it was obvious that they had no clue what they were doing. And a President with any level of competance would have fired them once it was obvious things were going badly. But he preferred a bunch of patsies who would tell him what he wanted to hear and they didn't love their country and their soldiers enough to be honest with him.

Notice how Cheney is trying to distance himself from Iraq now? What's the old saying, success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan? I think he's hopeful America will remember this one as Bush's orphan, and not his.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, Bush and his Republican Congress wanted to slash taxes on capital gains (as it is, they cut them to 15 percent, I believe). The people who benefit most from a cut in capital gains tax are wealthy people who live off investments. The majority of stock in the country is held by a relatively small number of people. Trickle-down economics is a Republican creation (and if you ask me, anyone who has ever worked for gratuities could have told you it was a crock because they tell me the rich tend to be the crummiest tippers). Right now, the rich pay considerably less in taxes as a percentage of their total income that the middle-class due to the cuts in the capital gains tax and assorted other breaks the Republicans have given them. You think that's not a big difference? That 35 vs. 39 percent stat is on earned income from a job, not stocks or other things you don't actually have to do any work for.

The drive to outlaw abortion is in the Republican party plank; it's not a fringe belief of a few members. (Of course, there's no plank pushing for increased availability of daycare or easy access to contraceptives for women). In addition, it's Republicans who have fought against Plan B being available over the counter, and opposed making the HPV vaccine available. "Sodomy" was a crime in Texas (Republican controlled) until just a few years ago, when the Supreme Court struck it down, much to the fury of the dissenting conservative justices on the court. What party do you think they vote? And Terri Schiavo, of course. (You are aware the video tape oft cited was cut together from hours and hours of material, and the sections of Terri staring off blankly while her mom pleaded with her to look at her were not shown to the public?) How abut the one-and-a-half BILLION dollar initiative to pressure single Americans to get married and for married Americans in bad marriages to stay married. You remember that one, don't you? Is that a good start for you?

Oh, and the abstinence-only education in public schools. Withholding factual information is also interfering in private lives.

Look, I'll actually give you that Rumsfeld in a different time and with a different President was decent at his job. But when the people in charge were, even before the invasion, saying pretty blatantly that there was no plan for afterwards because we'd be "greeted as liberators" (right, Cheney. You keep smoking that particular weed), I think it was obvious that they had no clue what they were doing. And a President with any level of competance would have fired them once it was obvious things were going badly. But he preferred a bunch of patsies who would tell him what he wanted to hear and they didn't love their country and their soldiers enough to be honest with him.

Notice how Cheney is trying to distance himself from Iraq now? What's the old saying, success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan? I think he's hopeful America will remember this one as Bush's orphan, and not his.

I agree with you about some of those things. I absolutely think that Plan B should be legal.

I only partially agree with you about Iraq. I think we were in fact greeted as liberators. The vast majority of Iraqis saw us as liberators. All the polls in Iraq showed that. The problem has been that there is a very strong, well-armed insurgency. They may only make up 3% of the population, but that is enough to wreak havoc. The Bush Administration obviously made a huge mistake in totally underestimating the insurgency.

With regard to taxes, it is true what you are saying about the capital gains tax. But I think there are plenty of Democrats who wanted to lower the capital gains tax too. My main point about taxes is that the differences between the two parties are very subtle when you compare us to other countries. I'm not sure how hig taxes are right now in England, but at one time I think the people in the highest tax brackets were paying around 90% in taxes. Now that would be an extreme difference if one of our parties wanted taxes to be 80-90% and the other party only wanted taxes to be around 30%. Now that would be a huge difference.

If you look at the views of the 15% of our country that is furthest to the right and then you look at the views of the 15% of our country that is furthest to the left, you may see some fairly significant differences. But those people aren't really the mainstream of our country. The maistream of our country is the other 70%. That 70% majority are really the ones who are making most of the decisions.

Even though I am right of center and you are left of center, I still think that we are both in that 70% that I am referring to. If you and I were in charge of the country starting tomorrow, we'd probably disagree on plenty of stuff, but I don't think there would be anything that we would be all that far apart on. We could probably compromise on most things. I don't have any really extreme views and I don't think that you do either. Even though you are left of center, I don't think you would want to cut military spending by 90% or anything like that. Even though I am right of center, I wouldn't want to outlaw abortion or anything like that.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree with you about some of those things. I absolutely think that Plan B should be legal.

I only partially agree with you about Iraq. I think we were in fact greeted as liberators. The vast majority of Iraqis saw us as liberators. All the polls in Iraq showed that. The problem has been that there is a very strong, well-armed insurgency. They may only make up 3% of the population, but that is enough to wreak havoc. The Bush Administration obviously made a huge mistake in totally underestimating the insurgency.

With regard to taxes, it is true what you are saying about the capital gains tax. But I think there are plenty of Democrats who wanted to lower the capital gains tax too. My main point about taxes is that the differences between the two parties are very subtle when you compare us to other countries. I'm not sure how hig taxes are right now in England, but at one time I think the people in the highest tax brackets were paying around 90% in taxes. Now that would be an extreme difference if one of our parties wanted taxes to be 80-90% and the other party only wanted taxes to be around 30%. Now that would be a huge difference.

If you look at the views of the 15% of our country that is furthest to the right and then you look at the views of the 15% of our country that is furthest to the left, you may see some fairly significant differences. But those people aren't really the mainstream of our country. The maistream of our country is the other 70%. That 70% majority are really the ones who are making most of the decisions.
Even though I am right of center and you are left of center, I still think that we are both in that 70% that I am referring to. If you and I were in charge of the country starting tomorrow, we'd probably disagree on plenty of stuff, but I don't think there would be anything that we would be all that far apart on. We could probably compromise on most things. I don't have any really extreme views and I don't think that you do either. Even though you are left of center, I don't think you would want to cut military spending by 90% or anything like that. Even though I am right of center, I wouldn't want to outlaw abortion or anything like that.

Rupert, please edit this hideously naive statement. You are killing all of your credibility.

70% of the country is in favor of the current strategy in Iraq????

70% of the country is benefitting from the economic strategies of this administration?

70% of the country is in favor of torture?

70% of the country is in favor of illegal wiretaps?

Shall I continue? The neo cons have pissed all over the constitution and are the reason classic conservatives are and will be leaving the republican party. 70% arent making most of the decisions and most of the decisions arent benefitting those 70%.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Shall I continue? The neo cons have pissed all over the constitution and are the reason classic conservatives are and will be leaving the republican party. 70% arent making most of the decisions and most of the decisions arent benefitting those 70%.

i agree with this 100%. neocons are now leaving their 'leader' out in the cold. i don't know if they sold him a bill of goods, or the bill of goods was poorly handled by bush. either way, no one at this point can say they got what they wanted or needed from bush. whether he listened to the wrong folks, or did the wrong things with the right info, i don't know. but this most recent elections is proof positive that moderate repubs felt more at ease voting for moderate dems.

[skippy3481]

Capital gains screws everybody and if you dont realize that then we have a problem. Do the rich use it more, of course, they have more money in investments then the average person. But there is nothing like selling something (that you bought with after-tax dollars) and then getting taxed again. Absolutely asinine. Ofr course, I also don't believe the government should tax you on gambling winnings either. Dem repub, it doesnt matter, they are all crooked as can be. I have a question, and if you anyone doesnt ill be fine because its a personal question. Is anyone actually in the highest income bracket here? Because it sounds like a alot of the servants wanting more from the table(I'm from a middle income bracket)

[Danzig]

nationwide, no we're not in the highest bracket. but for this state, i was surprised to learn that my husband and i are in the top 2%. of course this is arkansas, so that doesn't say the same as if you were the top 2% in new york, cali and the like.

[skippy3481]

That at least gives you somewhat of a voice then. It's human nature to want someone else to pay more, it becomes a great deal harder when your in the highest bracket to say raise my taxes.

[Danzig]

some advocate everyone paying the same % of taxes. but others think those who have more, should pay more. but obviously, if you pay more, your % paid would be more.
also, as for capital gains, some feel if you tax them, you hinder re-investment. that it also keeps the rich from getting into business, and as they say, no poor folks hire people, start a business, etc. no easy answers here folks. you can't argue with results, and tax revenues have risen. arkansas is looking at close to $1 billion in excess revenue. that's a huge amount of money, and in a state that taxes at a high rate. we have state income tax, property tax, personal property tax, and a sales tax that even taxes groceries and medicine! some are advocating completely eliminating grocery and meds tax, while others are trying to find some way to spend the money before any taxes are cut. no one wants a cut in essential services, but some folks opinion of 'essential' is far different than others.
then there's the earned income tax credit. i work with people who not only pay no fed income tax, but get thousands back--that they never paid out. this isn't a 'refund', it's another form of redistribution of wealth.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Rupert, please edit this hideously naive statement. You are killing all of your credibility.

70% of the country is in favor of the current strategy in Iraq????

70% of the country is benefitting from the economic strategies of this administration?

70% of the country is in favor of torture?

70% of the country is in favor of illegal wiretaps?

Shall I continue? The neo cons have pissed all over the constitution and are the reason classic conservatives are and will be leaving the republican party. 70% arent making most of the decisions and most of the decisions arent benefitting those 70%.

I partially agree with you. It is true that the government is not always doing what its constituents want it to do.

On the other hand, I think you are way off the mark with your other comments. I don't think there is any specific strategy that 70% of Americans would agree on in Iraq. However, there have been several startegies presented by people in government. I do think that 70% of the population would support at least one of the approaches presented. That is my point. My point is that the bipartisan, mainstream ideas in Congress usually cover the viewpoints of mainstream America.

With regard to the wiretaps, if you explain to people exactly what is being done, I think the vast majority of Americans are in favor of the wiretaps. Our government is only wiretapping the phones of people that have been communicating with terrorists. Who would possibly be against us tapping the phones of people who have been communciating with terrorists?

With regard to what is going on at Gitmo, I would have to think that the vast majority of Americans are ok with what's going on. We may not like it, but if it may save lives then I think people are willing to give our government some leeway. Have you seen any indication that a large percenatge of Americans are against the interrogation techniques used? By the way, you also need to consider that there are plenty of people out there who will simply be against a policy for partisan reasons. For example, let's say that there is 35% of the population who claim that they are against our interrogation techniques. you have to remeber that many of these same people will have no problem with those exact techniques if a Democrat was President. There is major hypocrisy in both parties. There are plenty of Americans in both parties that will complain about a policy if the policy is initiated by the other party. For example, there were plenty of Americans that were complaing when Clinton was bombing Kosovo. Many of those same people that were complaining would not have been complaining if it was Bush who was bombing Kosovo.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I partially agree with you. It is true that the government is not always doing what its constituents want it to do.

On the other hand, I think you are way off the mark with your other comments. I don't think there is any specific strategy that 70% of Americans would agree on in Iraq. However, there have been several startegies presented by people in government. I do think that 70% of the population would support at least one of the approaches presented. That is my point. My point is that the bipartisan, mainstream ideas in Congress usually cover the viewpoints of mainstream America.

With regard to the wiretaps, if you explain to people exactly what is being done, I think the vast majority of Americans are in favor of the wiretaps. Our government is only wiretapping the phones of people that have been communicating with terrorists. Who would possibly be against us tapping the phones of people who have been communciating with terrorists?

With regard to what is going on at Gitmo, I would have to think that the vast majority of Americans are ok with what's going on. We may not like it, but if it may save lives then I think people are willing to give our government some leeway. Have you seen any indication that a large percenatge of Americans are against the interrogation techniques used? By the way, you also need to consider that there are plenty of people out there who will simply be against a policy for partisan reasons. For example, let's say that there is 35% of the population who claim that they are against our interrogation techniques. you have to remeber that many of these same people will have no problem with those exact techniques if a Democrat was President. There is major hypocrisy in both parties. There are plenty of Americans in both parties that will complain about a policy if the policy is initiated by the other party. For example, there were plenty of Americans that were complaing when Clinton was bombing Kosovo. Many of those same people that were complaining would not have been complaining if it was Bush who was bombing Kosovo.

Rupert,
Where do I start?
Ok...Let's begin with the "will of the majority". Current polls indicate about 75% of the American people wish for a withdrawl or redeployment of American forces in Iraq. They voted for a "change of course" last month.
So, is the "majority" being heard? Or, instead...after four years of a failed policy are there calls for increasing American military presence in Iraq?
Feel free to tell me. I assure you that I'll listen, even though those in power don't. I don't control this situation, nor do the majority of citizens that have voiced their disapproval.
Interesting that you believe in the "will of the majority" but deny the protections offerred by the United States Constitution that assure the rights of the "minorities". Supreme Court decisions have again and again "constructively" decided to uphold those same rights under the "rule of law", whether they concern a religious group that has "unpopular beliefs",
people of a minority ethnic background seeking education and voting opportunities, or gender equality. Even those that wish to deface or burn the American flag (though I don't agree with doing this action), have been given the freedom to do so as an act of "free speech". Their actions, though hardly a "majority view" are constitutionally protected.
Regarding of the "right to privacy" that is guaranteed by the 4th amendment, and the FISA law, and our current administration's disregard of same, it is hoped that this matter will be addressed in the courts. Those that have violated their oath to "preserve and defend" the constitution should be held accountable. As should those that have done away with habeus corpus.
In summation, please realize that the constitution has provisions that, although enjoyed by all, do in fact protect those in the "minority" as well.
Matters of "invasion of privacy", "suspension of habeus corpus", or any other disregard of those rights, will be dealt with via the judicial system, (and btw...that's not the majority).