You guys forgot to mention the Bush is responsible for killing upwards of 100000 people. Beyond all the idiots who voted for him and all of his terrible policies, I'd say murdering tens of thousands of innocent people is a good reason to hate him.

bliZsham wrote:You guys forgot to mention the Bush is responsible for killing upwards of 100000 people. Beyond all the idiots who voted for him and all of his terrible policies, I'd say murdering ten of thousands of innocent people is a good reason to hate him.

No no... Bush would have had to have been in the regular military to have done that directly...

If you want to talk about further perpetuation of economic damages leading to deaths of people who would have benefitted restoration of previous non/low interest national third world development loans (try and say that 3 times fast!), well then, lets start by making that 10,000 a weekly statistic, and we're on the right track. Pretty much every president since the end of the Carter administration is culpable of this, though, everyone shares blame.

Bill:
Apology accepted

As for how the mass-media workings inside and outside "the Bubble" Canadians are actually uniquely positioned because we're close enough that general American sentiments regarding issues does mean something, but since we're independant of the US (to an extent, and vice versa) we also generally don't close in and focus on what a few key people have to say. Put it this way, during the Iraq war build up, it was published about 2 days before Bush addressed the UN Gen Assembly stating that Her Majesty's Intelligence Service's (ie, MI-5) documents that stated Iraq was building up a nuclear stockpile (and the "Yellow Cake" from an African nation) were in fact completely baseless (it was a fabrication of a man that had an axe to grind with Iraq/Hussein), and, the mobile CBRN factories (on Rail cars) were a fiction.

This didn't get reported until after the invasion began.

As well, it was WELL published outside the US after Bush gave his 24 hr notice to Hussein et al. that the Whitehouse Chief of Staff had stated that there would be an invasion even if the Husseins packed up and left. This barely made it as a bullet on the news tickers.

One of the things I've stated numerous times is that Objectivity is preferable, and though there is some sensationalism in the news media here, I've heard very little in the way of chest thumping from the news media here regarding what has happened in Iraq. To be fair, however, we don't hear a lot about what is happening in Afghanistan, which has sadly been all but forgotten in the minds of most american news outlets. More's the pity... that's where the genesis of the War on Terror was, and should have stayed until the military could produce Bin Laden.

Sappy:
Sorry man, I thought you were trying to tell me that Reaganomics is gospel...

And as for painting a big bullseye on the USA, right now, it seems Spain and Britain have been catching the body blows.. I know some of the people in CT at the RCMP (not in CSIS, but I'm not supposed to...) and they're pretty sure Canada can't keep dodging bullets.

Kyle:
With respect to what you're saying, you're right mostly, however, you seem to think that I'm talking personal taxes here... I'm not. If corporations and people paid the same rate of taxes, you'd get 2 benefits:
- Lower personal taxes, so, those who have money, can keep it and ideally make more
- Corporations will reap benefits because individuals will be able to afford more products, and will be able to invest the extra income into their company.

I've said a few times, I want to see taxation go Dollar for dollar, it's not quite a flat tax, but it's more about equalization. I can't reconcile that 12 days of the fiscal year, corporate taxes carry the tax burden, and the other 353 days, it's on the people, even though combined, corporations make over 160,000 times the money from total combined taxable incomes of individuals (assuming National GDP of 10 trillion dollars per annum).

I respect what you're saying, and I respect the kind of person that will do for themselves, but understand, in this equation, you are the minority, and also understand, you pay more in total tax dollars, but less of a percentage of what you make annually. Someone on poverty level (ie, about 13,000 per annum) that has to fork over 12% of their paycheque loses a lot more than if you were to pay the same amount... ie, you'd lose the ability to pay for an amenity, while joe poor will probably have to forgo heat or electricity for a month.

I'm not insinuating you're out of touch either, just that, if people are doing the responsible thing by paying their just dues, how do you justify corporations shirking those responsibilities? I've read in several instances if corporate taxes were to climb a mere 2% for the upper 4% of the highest earning corporations, personal income taxes could be dropped by over 9% across the board, and, the returns would easily offset the increased burden for corporations. If I can find the link (or whatever it was, I believe it was published by the Fed. Reserve), I'll post it. I also look at it like this: if a corporation can justify in this exceedingly tax friendly climate, the exportation of jobs to other places with less judicious (if any) labour unions, environmental laws, and governments, they ought to do the rest of the people they put out of work a favour and at least make it easier for them to get along when they pick up work later.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

corporations are corrupt, thats a given, i'm a staunch supporter of the small business man, US corporations are a black eye on the image of the small businessman.

Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:
*sigh* More predictable recitations from the World Left list. The CNN one is cute, but so over-used now as to be approaching hilarity. The arrogant "We are not from America, so all Americans are blind to what we can see" is a yawn. The "who did you vote for", just as predictable (by the way, in this nation, that information is viewed as a sacred and private choice, so don't EVEN use anyone's reticence to answer as yet another left-bomb). These attempts to pigeonhole are typical, and indicate a desire to polarize and enrage, as opposed to discussing the issues.

If you truly view what I said to GAM as 'attacking', well, you just perpetuate what I am saying here...that inflammatory, canned, guerilla tactics seem just desperate.

I am curious though...as i weed through the invective, I see something about 'proportional representation'. My question for you is this: why does it so anger your group so that the last two presidential elections were so close?

I simply was curious, as it was VERY obvious that you guys were hard-core republicans. There's nothing wrong with that. Private choice is great - this is the war forum; if you don't want to answer my questions then don't. It's as simple as that. Polarize and enrage? It didn't take long for you to speak up and question Gam's source of information, and then patronize me. Look in the mirror - you do it just as well as anyone else.
I like how you labelled me as "left wing", yet you don't have the first clue who I am. I've voted everything from PC (right wing) to NDP (left wing), and can best be described as being somewhere in the middle (which Canadian politics lacks IMO). You don't want me pigeonholing you, yet you're trying to do the exact same thing to me by labelling me as left wing, or being part of some "group". What happens during presidential elections really doesn't mean a thing to me until idiots like GWB come into the picture, turn an otherwise fine country into a "military state" that goes overseas to start pointless wars against an "enemy" they really can't fight (we all know that whole war was to try and finish what daddy couldn't, and the oil undertones cannot be avoided). This kind of crap affects the Canadian economy, which makes it VERY much our business. As for the "closeness" of the elections, that is why I threw the proportional representation up there. From what I've read, most US elections are generally very, very close, but Bush didn't win the first election by popular vote. The second was won using a combination of fear tactics and the listless personality of John Kerry (I'm pretty sure a monkey would have done a better job at winning people's votes). Had there been PR there likely wouldn't have been a war (or continued US alienation, or a working Kyoto - well, the list of bad things done by the bush admin goes on and on).

As for CNN, that's fine if you think that my reference to it was "cute", but have you actually gone out of your way to watch it, then go to another broadcast such as the BBC and hear their version of the same story? One of them isn't speaking the whole truth about dealings in the middle east. Sure it's a great thing to keep morale up in a country who is at war with someone else, but sometimes I wonder if CNN is covering something other than the war than Iraq - some war that the US is actually winning easily. That's great if you don't watch CNN - the problem lies in the reality that way too many people do.

I'm curious by what you mean "inflammatory, canned, guerilla tactics seem just desperate"? Are you talking about my response, or the US's method of dealing with everything it can't control? If you're talking about me, all I have to say is that my views are anything but desperate. The war has already begun, and the damage has already been done. It's far too late to be desperate. If this thing doesn't turn into a full-blown civil war in Iraq I will be amazed. All I see in the US popular media are people trying to justify their government's "lets blow it up first, and figure out why later" actions. IMO, propaganda started this whole middle-east mess (I do find the complete lack of WMDs morbidly funny), and continues to fuel this war.

quote=kyle 102565]i never once insinuated that i'm better than anyone, i've also been homeless back when i was a drunken drug addict in southern california, i know how the other half lives, do you? i've busted my ass to clean myself up and make something of myself. i never went to college, i run my own business today without the help of a government loan, i've had jobs that youd run away from, so @!#$ you. you wouldnt last 10 seconds in the life i lived, you @!#$ pussy.

Aahh, Kyle. That's quite the intellectual, constructive reply you gave me. My GF and I had a good laugh when we read it. But seriously, you don't have the first clue who I am, so next time use your brain instead of your shift button, respond rationally to further posts, or STFU. I expect dim-witted remarks like that in the versus forum, not here.

You've had jobs I'd run away from? I HIGHLY doubt it. I've never been homeless, but I've also never been stupid enough to do things that would land me there (and I'm certainly not street stupid). I too busted my balls to make a better life for myself. I grew up dirt-poor in an alcoholic family, but now have 2 degrees and a great career. Millions of other people have done the same thing. Call me a pussy all you want, but the only things you know about me are the words that I post, and the few things I wrote in my profile. Since you don't know anything about me, do us all a favour and keep your petty insults to yourself and focus on the argument at hand. If that's too difficult, please stop posting.
You mentioned that you lived as a homeless person when you were younger, but cleaned yourself up. That's quite admireable, but I cannot help but wonder how you can give up on those people when you yourself are proof that these people can turn themselves around and become productive members of society. I agree with you -> people don't need handouts - they need help to turn themselves around (the whole "give a man a fish" idea). Taxing the hell out of people who can't afford it isn't something I'd consider "help", do you? I would think that creating better jobs for lower-class people would be a start (so that they can afford to pay their fair share come tax-time), but that can't really happen with your economy in the state it's currently in. The one thing that completely baffles me is that the US is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on this war, and is providing more tax cuts to keep the economy from dying completely. That debt has to be paid off by someone (including both the rich and the poor), but all I'm seeing is short-sightedness from individuals like you. I can understand why you only look out for yourself as a small businessman, but you have to be concerned about the bigger picture. If that money had been put into education (such as reducing the costs so that more people could afford to go to college to better themselves), or healthcare, or into any number of other social programs that help produce jobs, it's not hard to envision how much that would have helped everyone as a whole. Of course, it's far too late for "what ifs".




Free your mind - shoot your TV.