Piece of conversation between George W and...

Normally I have nothing good to say about Bush, but I will say this much in defense: At no point has he ever given in to the prevailing climate of hatred leveled at Muslims since 9/11. You'd think a guy who espouses Jesus as his favorite philosopher would be with the hard right and their seeming condemnation of all things Arab, but he has repeatedly come out against such anti-Muslim feeling, and that's important. No matter what he feels privately, Bush has been smart enough to keep religion out of it, and he deserves some credit for that. if we came out of this saying "Death to Moslems!" or other fiery rhetoric, we'd never be able to ensure even a limited measure of success against the terrorists.

"I'm not sure what distinction you are making here. Money is money, right ? Are you implying the team is worth much less now ? It wouldn't surprise me, but that just makes him look like even more of a thief; in any case, he cashed out then, when it was worth whatever it was at that time. The bottom line is that if my city gave me a bunch of free help from tax money for a private business of mine, and I made a killing on it that exceeded the amount of the 'gift', I would then repay the 'gift' and keep only the difference. Especially if I was planning a career in politics...but it's really a simple matter of ethics, and, dare I say it, karma."

No, I am not implying that the Rangers are worth less now. As a matter of fact, they are doing well enough for Tom Hicks to spend a quarter of a BILLION dollars on A-ROD over ten years.

The City of Arlington did not "give" GWB one red cent. They voted on a tax increase that would improve the playing facilities of the Texas Rangers, and, obstensibly keep the franchise in town for the extendend future.

The value of the team went up when they signed Nolan Ryan. The value of the team went up when they made the play offs for three years in a row. And, yes, the value of the team probably went up because they had a new place to play, with cash generating luxury boxes. A new place that would also attract highly prized free agents.

However, do you really think the citizens of Arlington voted to "give" the Rangers (and not GWB) a new ballpark for nothing???? Come on, T. They were expecting to get something for their money. Increased revenue via sales taxes, hotel taxes, etc..... Don't be stupid economics guy......

As far as your bankrupt assertion that GWB should have given his profits back upon entering public life is concerned, do you hold your boy Terry "the Mackster" (approved DNC nickname, BTW) McAuliffe to the same standard? I'm sure the folks who've lost their jobs at Global Crossing would love a little help from a man who made almost TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS off of the sweat of their brows.

And, interestingly enough, it would seem that your karma theory is working................but not to the detriment of GWB :)

"People who make more money pay more taxes, duh. But, they're still making more money, and still paying less taxes than they were in the 90s, and putting them toward a less sensible set of expenditures. Your figures only serve to illustrate the wage gap."

"....less sensible set of expenditures." ?!?!?!??! What!?! What a bunch of populist, verging on communist, drivel! Just how would YOU spend other peoples money? Keep your grubby hands OFF of MY money!

My figures serve to illustrate the class warfare that is openly waged on the people of America by dems. Whenever they (you) pop off about tax cuts only being for the "richest 1%" or the "wealthiest Americans" they (you) are obfuscating. You do this because you cannot win the battle of ideas.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott "Yeah, I'm quite sure the UAW is ALL FOR the Kyoto Protocol. BTW, how many hundreds of thousands of pounds of jet fuel did Al Gore burn to get to Japan and back????? :D

I'm biting my tongue here, even though there's lots I'd want to say about Bush 'cos I don't want to get into a vitriolic political row on this particular forum (there are other forums I go to to meet my arguing needs). But I do think the Kyoto treaty isn't worth arguing over, whatever side one is on. If one accepts the models of climate change all it would have done was slow global warming by about 6 years over the next century.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott No, I am not implying that the Rangers are worth less now.

Christ! He's a hun as well!

"The City of Arlington did not "give" GWB one red cent. They voted on a tax increase that would improve the playing facilities of the Texas Rangers, and, obstensibly keep the franchise in town for the extendend future."

When you get something of value and don't have to pay for it or pay it back, that's a gift. The tax increase didn't just 'improve' the facilities, they paid for brand new ones and other property nearby for additional 'development'.

"As far as your bankrupt assertion that GWB should have given his profits back upon entering public life is concerned, do you hold your boy Terry "the Mackster" (approved DNC nickname, BTW) McAuliffe to the same standard? I'm sure the folks who've lost their jobs at Global Crossing would love a little help from a man who made almost TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS off of the sweat of their brows."

I have no idea what this is about, and frankly you bringing it up does not constitute a reason for me to care; the issues I care about are not dictated by republicans.

"And, interestingly enough, it would seem that your karma theory is working................but not to the detriment of GWB"

that is a matter of opinion.

"....less sensible set of expenditures." ?!?!?!??! What!?! What a bunch of populist, verging on communist, drivel! Just how would YOU spend other peoples money? Keep your grubby hands OFF of MY money!"

I am not interested in your money, I'm talking about the federal budget. It seems to me it is a common sense, baseline assumption that people of differing political ideas can debate the expenditure of public money without attacking each others' motivations, because it is public money, we are all involved.

"My figures serve to illustrate the class warfare that is openly waged on the people of America by dems. Whenever they (you) pop off about tax cuts only being for the "richest 1%" or the "wealthiest Americans" they (you) are obfuscating. You do this because you cannot win the battle of ideas."

I never said anything about 1%. It is a basic truth that tax breaks proposed by Republicans benefit those with larger incomes to a disproportionate degree (although I grant that they also pay taxes to a disproportionate degree, since taxes are based on income). It is also true that the rare tax breaks proposed by the Dems, or negotiated towards by them when the fiscal power is closely balanced, tend to benefit the middle class. If you care to try and refute this, please do so, otherwise, your claim of my 'obfuscation' (what, did you get a thesaurus for xmas last year ?) is hollow, and your throwing around canned rhetoric is not winning you the 'battle of ideas'. I don't think a reasonable person can argue that the two major US parties play to different key constituencies and gear their financial platform toward them.

Happy One, if there is a global ban on political topics on this forum, or one is clearly enacted, I will respect that; however, this is labeled the 'general chat' forum, and I am not inclined to be censored by your whim. I note that there are many threads on this page that go into sports and other completely unrelated topics in great depth. What's good for the goose, etc... if you want us to move to another thread, that is fine, just say so, or the originator of the thread can.

Originally posted by teleharmonium Happy One, if there is a global ban on political topics on this forum, or one is clearly enacted, I will respect that; however, this is labeled the 'general chat' forum, and I am not inclined to be censored by your whim. I note that there are many threads on this page that go into sports and other completely unrelated topics in great depth. What's good for the goose, etc... if you want us to move to another thread, that is fine, just say so, or the originator of the thread can.

This debate doesn't seem to be solving anything, but it's good to see. Ever since Sept. 11, we've given Dubya a blank check do prosecute the "war on terror" and no serious debate of the issues involved (who really sponsers terrorists, invasion of privacy, individual rights vs. security) has been encouraged. Dick Cheney basically has implied any questioning of our reasons to invade Iraq is unpatriotic, yet Halliburton did business deals with the Iraqi Gov't while he was CEO. Who's being 'unpatriotic'? I tell ya, the Republicans better enjoy this ride, because if the economy continues to decline and we can't catch Bin Laden, they'll be the focal point of American anger.

I hope we don't have to go into Iraq, and I'd like to believe that the highest people in the American gov't would be sensible about it and not involve us in a war we can't win, but I don't know. Look at Vietnam: usual troop movements vs. guerilla warriors and an ill-defined enemy leads often to defeat. And are we ready to put a number on how many of our troops die before we can say "That's it, terroism's done!"?

The Attorney Generalship of Heinrich Ashcroft has me scared shitless as well. Would a terrorist be anyone who disagrees with the gov't? Or are we just concerned about Muslims? Hell, if we're so worried, let's just throw out the Constitution and enact a police state. Security above freedom...do you REALLY want it to come to that?

Saddam needs to be taken out, true. But we should have done it TEN YEARS AGO! The Irqai people need to be encouraged to rise up against him, if possible (I know it's a long shot, but a homegrown revolution would lessen the danger to us becasue we couldn't be blamed.). Cheney's just trying to cover his own ass.

It's obvious that I and Michael will disagree on these, but let me just say that America is great in that we can tolerate DIFFERENCES OF OPINION without resorting to censorship or violence. I think you'd agree with me on that, Michael, so let us enjoy it while we still can. Odds are, that won't last much longer.

now that this is open again, i'll start things off with my extended, highly intellectual view of the politcal landscape:

BUSH SUCKS.

Originally posted by Biznotic Love Trapazoid now that this is open again, i'll start things off with my extended, highly intellectual view of the politcal landscape:BUSH SUCKS.

Do his daughters suck though ? Saw that they can now legally drink.....

Originally posted by Benny's Cobweb Eyes > Originally posted by Biznotic Love Trapazoid> now that this is open again, i'll start things off with my extended, highly intellectual view of the politcal landscape:> > BUSH SUCKS.

Do his daughters suck though ? Saw that they can now legally drink.....

While I have no personal experience concerning the Bush girls to form a reasoned opinion, I'll bet there are some young Yalies or Longhorns who could shed some light on the subject!