why am i against lets see...hes a bully (he basically tore apart another country's government even though the UN said not to)...hes against everything i stand for (basic human rights ie marriage, a woman's right to choose what she does with her body, poverty, etc.) and hes just stupid and he pisses me off oh and he wants to get rid of federal jobs meaning if he is reelected then my parents will be out of work because they both work for the federal government and are not contracted civillians.

and just so you know im an independant i have nothing against republicans in general just this one in particular

Love the title of this article...

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_4987.shtml

I notice that they only had the numbers for those who would "definitly" would vote for Bush. What about "probably" or "undecided"?

And of course Canada is not as good off now as we were in 2000. A little event called 9-11 occured as well as SARS and mad cow.

None of these were Bush's fault.

-Dunefish

Either way Dunefish, Bush isn't popular with Canadians in general. Typically, Canadians outside of Alberta do not like social conservatives, nor do they like bullies. Bush loses on both those counts.

Are we better off now than in 2000? Probably not. In 2000, the Tech bubble hadn't quite burst yet, and mad cow and Sars had not hit us.

However, I'd suggest that the US has suffered a far greater decline than we have. With a budget deficit approaching 500 billion for this year alone, a series of untenable tax cuts being implemented that will ensure another similar deficit next year, and an economy beginning to sputter again after only a few months of recovery, the American are in huge trouble.

I'll take our boring 2% growth and balanced budget over the American situation any day.

Bush is evil :angry:

income in alberta, despite a 40-60% profit increase across the board in many corporations, has actually gone down (relative average) while the cost of lving as well as natural inflation have continued


within the next 20 years you will either be super rich or nearly deadbeat poor.



so, are we better off than 4 years ago?


no

was that bush's fault? no, not entirely, it's a neo-con movement that preaches HUGE profits, little control and really no empahasis on social justice


I want bush ousted. really, really badly, because he is a really bad influence on the longterm situation of both people in the U.S> and people in Canada nad Mexico (NAFTA)

i second that...

i'm...not even going to get involved in this.

*goes to sit alone on the republican bench*

*joins and comforts Canadiiya*

yay, i'm not the only one :)

question for dunefish and canadiiya...what is it about the bush administration that allows you to support him? what has he done that you think is right?

its not so much the fact that I support him as the fact that the democratic candidates are bloody morons. And in all honesty, I do believe that Bush has done what he has believed to be the best for the country throughout his term, whether it actually helped or not.
Why are you against him?

And I'm still republican, no matter what.

the UN is not always right.

I do disagree with his opinions on same sex marriage and abortion, though.

But do not get me started on welfare and social security. The rest of your argumens just kind of slip down from there, although I will certainly feel bad if your parents lose their jobs. However, depending on what they do, they shouldn't have problems finding new jobs, because most of the jobs that are being lost on a national basis are low level jobs.

This man has learned NOTHING about what did in his father. As Clinton said, "It's the Economy, Stupid".

The American economy, while recently on a mild upswing, has begun to sputter again. Also, he has not been creating many jobs. Bush's job growth projections of 3.2 million new jobs this year are a farce, it won't be anywhere near that. No self-respecting economist would project anywhere near that kind of job growth. On top of this, they have a 526 Billion Dollar Deficit.

The man has run his nation's economy into the ground.

Because of this, he may actually lose in November, despite a 52% approval rating.

hlm, are you american?

You should really meet my mother, she'd run that argument into the ground. However, I'm not nearly as good at explaining these things as my mother, but I shall attempt to sum up.

The economy was falling before he came into office. We are at war; the economy is always down during wars. The WORLD TRADE CENTERS (which happen to be the center of a lot of business) were destroyed, ruining a lot of businesses when they lost their top executives (the people who actually knew how to run the company). Enron certainly didn't help anything, since it caused people to lose faith in businesses.
And how many people have you met in your life who aren't in a deficit? That’s the way life runs.

And job creation cannot happen instantaneously. It takes time.

The UN is not always right. however, the UN represents many of the mechanisms of international law. While the UN may not have been right, the US was clearly wrong. It broke international law on many levels. That should not be tolerated.

Social Security is necessary in a modern society. When your president fails to create jobs for his citizens, then the Government must take responsibility of its failure and take care of its unemployed.

Lastly, the contention that "government jobs are low level jobs" is not supportable by any empiracle evidence.

Governments in the US employ judges, lawyers, accountants, spies, Defence personnel, Engineers, etc. etc. Those are all what you would call "high level jobs".

To suggest that most federal workers are "low level", and that as a result, they are not worthy of keeping their employment is strictly social darwinistic. Then again, that kind of attitude may explain why America is in such a faulty economic predicament to begin wtih...

Democratic canidates morons, whoooo, lets not say things we can't take back. In terms of intelligence(i'm assuming that's what your talking about) I say that Democrats have more intelligence than the bust adminstration will ever have. A while back Howard Dean(when he was still popular) was talking to some woman about Iran, now, if this were Bush, Bush would say something that doesn't make sense and has no bearing on the question being asked. However, instead, Dean gave a answer(a rather long one) that talked about the whole history of Iran, how it related to the cold war etc. So really, I don't think the Democrats are morons. With a slumping economy, and soldiers dying in attacks everyday, I think that Kerry,( I still can't believe he's gonna win, it just doesn't seem right) has a very good shot of winning in fact, we might have another situation in which Kerry wins the popular vote while Bush wins the electorate. which, in itself would be a tragedy, imagine, going down in history as the only president to win by supreme court ruling twice. Only 54% of Americans believe that Bush really won in 2000 if it happened again, I'm sure, he'd have some of the lowest popularity rates in American polling history.

whoa whoa whoa, when did i say, or even imply, that government jobs are low level? most of the job losses in this nation are occuring in factories. low level.

social security isn't supposed to help the unemployed.

alright, they impress me as being bloody morons.
it's not always wise to actually answer questions, as you claim dean does.

your right theyre not but when your part of a...for lack of a better word right now...group like that you dont just decide that your doing it your way screw everyone else...its still a democratic community and majority rules whether we agree with it or not. though i support the troops we sent over there i do not condone the way bush handled it. there are better ways.

now is that for or against...because just saying "dont get me started" is kinda blase and well ambivalent

what do you mean the rest of my arguments slip down from there?? having an opinon is not an argument i was just stating how he makes me feel. as for my parents you obviously have no idea about what is being removed job wise and what isnt because if you did then you would not have made that naive comment about "low level jobs"

That's a lie. The US economy was sputtering from 1929-39. During WWII, the war picked the economy up. Blaming the war for poor economic performance has no basis in fact.

Secondly, the US economy was humming right up until Bush took office. Then the tech bubble burst.

Actually, the military spending caused by the war should have boosted the American economy. However, it didn't.

The World Trade Centres, while a big hit, does not explain why the entire US economy is in the toilet. It most certainly should have affected New York, and had an effect on the financial sector. It cannot be blamed for America's poor economic showing over the entire Bush administration.

When someone blames "the terrorists" for 3 years of poor economic showing, it tells me they are willfully blind. Yes, September 11th was a bad thing. It does not explain a record setting deficit, and appallingly bad economic performance.

But feel free to keep believing that a poor economy is excusable. If Bush follows your line of reasoning, he, like his father, will be out of a job next November. The US economy has sputtered long enough. Voters generally don't stand for that.

And lets not confuse facts. Why is America so special. All six other members of the G-7 are running economic surpluses. Yet America is being run into the ground with a 500 billion dollar deficit that is projected to INCREASE next year. This is the clearest sign that Bush is a weak leader economically.

Bush has had three years to create jobs. The "it takes time" argument is true. But he's had three years. Lets face it - he's an economic failure.

i am in support of only the barest minimum of social security and welfare.


your arguments just become vague.

and i said nothing about government jobs being low level. yeesh.

heres a little history lesson darlin' wars create jobs...the us economy was at its peak during and after WWII because of jobs created during the war...just so ya know



oh and checkers yes i am a us citizen and that is something i am incredibly proud of which is why idiots in office make me mad ;)

here is what you said...

Social Security is there to help out the underprivileged in the US.

If your unemployed, you are covered under the social security system. I don't understand how you could possibly state that it is not the role of social security to help the unemployed - the very people who your beloved president has betrayed.

i am well aware that wars create jobs. however, not nearly as much manual labor is required in factories now as there was then.

and on a national basis. as in, most lost jobs accross the country overall are low level jobs. since that isn't the type of work your parents would be seeking, they wouldn't have as much difficulty finding new work as someone who was on that lower level.

and welfare helps the unemployed, not social security. social security is 65+, and too many people are depending solely on that, when they should be depending on their retirement checks.

and i have very little sympathy for the poor, honestly. with enough hard work, you can always be successful.

some people who are the elders of our country do not have retierment cheeks to sustain them and if they do 9 times out of 10 they arent enough to support them...and who are we to tell them as a country we refuse to support them???? hell most of them have in one form or anothe supported us in our lives...either as grandparents and for some as parents...get off your high horse hun and think for yourself please stop just repeating what your parents tell you.

I do think for myself, thanks. social security was never meant to be lived on, it was intended as a suplement. you are not supposed to just retire at 65 and sit around for the rest of your life.

anyway, i'm finished for tonight, i'm actually about to have a mental breakdown, so forgive me if i said anything rude (although that's probably no excuse)

so what people are supposed to continue working until they die??? comeon thats just wrong.

OH.. Sorry Canadiiya. I got welfare and social security mixed up I guess.

You are looking at current Seniors with 2004 eyes. 50 years ago, the government promised social security. And no one saved for retirement, assuming social security would take care of them. Today, that is ludicrous - we all have pensions with jobs, or put away money in RRSP's.

But that only started in the last decade. Anyone working before that was misled by their government. To lay the boots to elderly Americans who worked their butts off for your country, made it what it is today and, who were promised social security seems to me to be mean spirited. Their government LIED to them. They are not the bad guys here.

And that part about the poor - you and I will disagree about that. If you are born poor, you tend to die poor. It's not about merit in America anymore. It's about what class you were born into. Poverty creates barriers. But I guess if you're not poor, its pretty easy to just look down on them and blame the poor for their predicament. It's a far easier solution then actually creating programs to pull them out of poverty.

We couldnt' have that though. They might use those programs with their natural intellect and end up taking the good paying jobs that were supposed to go to the children of the middle and upper classes...

I’ve been poor. well, not poor, but part of a family living off of a single income from my father, who was in the Navy. My father left home with $100 in the bank. He didn't even have a driver’s license. He served in the military for 20 years, retired, found a new job, and is now making $110,000 base salary, plus bonuses. It is quite possible to work your way up from being poor.


and social security was created to supplement retirement checks! that is what it was made for, not to live on.
also, when they started social security, they did not expect the current life expectancy, nor did they think about the baby boomers, who are going to leave my generation heavily burdened with taxes.


and now I really am out of here. may not be back for a few days, got a lot of things coming up.

1) The Bush Administration would not be in debt at all if he had not approved 600 billion dollars in tax cuts- most of which went to the rich I might add

2) Historically War actually BOOSTS an economy. War often results in increased government contracts, and a bidding war brings jobs, brings new income, and boosts the middle clas. THis war didn't do any of that.

3) he went to war for the wrong reasons. Saddam is a horrible man, but he did not have WMD. he hasn't for years, and was a shadow of his Gulf War I regime.

4) As a Neo Conservative, all he wants is to let the Economy lie. with Gloabalization and a lack of control over multinational corporations that put forth a huge profit margin over all ethical and social principles that human beings should put before all else, they greedily rake up the world's disposable income while wages continue to stay stagnant, or, even go DOWN

the cost of living continues to rise, but the wages never do. this is the dream of the Neoconservatives- to let the economy run itself, to let people do as they wish while military and other matters are dealt with by government


please. Those big wigs would like nothing more than to enslave us all. All they want is our pocketchange and they will sell their firstborn to get it. How are we to trust these people to give us fair and honest wages, and fair and honest prices?


I dare you to find a horrible problem with oderate social democratic principles. there are many countries out there with reasonable economies and a lot of government control, so why would a free market continue to be the answer?

i've already addressed number 2. 3) it hasn't been proven that he didn't have them, actually. they think they were moved to another country. 4) if you raise the minimum wage, then companies will raise prices to accomodate.


how many of you live in america?

I'm not saying you can't get rich quick in America. I am saying it is highly unlikely, and statisticly it is not likely to happen. The system is set up so that if you are born in one economic class, you'll likely die in that class, unless you are very lucky, very special, or you bungle it all up and go from being rich to poor.

It makes sense, really. If you are poor, you are at a disadvantage - you get worse nutrition, less resources for schooling, education, recreation - heck you may have to work after school to support your household. You have less free time - your economic class is a built in barrier.

I disagree with your social security contention. It was set up to ensure the elderly had a living wage. That is not true anymore. the rise of RRSP's and retirement planning, coupled with budget deficits has ensure that social security is nothing more than a supplement. However, that was not its original intention, and today's retirees are caught in the middle of the changing priorities. It is not their fault.

Ok Canadiiya. Have fun - I enjoyed debating with you. Canada needs a couple of Right Wingers to mix it up and keep it interesting...

Yeah. I'd hate to have a politician that actually is accountable to the public, and actually answers their questions... :)

I didn't see anything rude, Canadiiya. Just hard nosed debate from all sides. (then again, I tend not to see "rude" stuff as easily as others. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we were all rude - if that was the case, someone should tell me, 'cause as a mod, I guess I should know what rudeness is...).

Anyway, this debate reminded me of a good old fahioned Edmonton Oilers - Calgary Flames playoff hockey game in the 80's. Just all-out rock 'em sock 'em no holds barred action. Nothing wrong with that.

[Jar Jar Binks] How WRROOD! [/Jar Jar Binks]

hmm...I guess those tags don't work on this board :P