When good is bad and bad is good

I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head
so I'll know how to vote come November.

Right now, we have one guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe. Lemme see; have I got this straight?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good..
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists-good... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...



Ahh, it's so confusing!

Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.

This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?

Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.

Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns four mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame)

Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year.
Kerry paid $90,000 Does that sound right?
The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.

Pass this on. Only 49 days until the election

 

So much rhetoric, so little time.

I just calculated my tax bill. Yes, I saved a whole $265 under the Bush tax plan. Alas, my state and local tax bills are going up. Bush merely shifted the tax burden from the feds to the state and cities. Some tax savings, huh?

BTW: Most of your "facts" are Fox News facts (you know, the type made up for TV)

Only 49 more days until this cowboy is riding his toy horsey back to that craphole (I have driven through Crawford, it is a true arm pit if there ever was one, just one step up from El Paso).

 

Okay then, please refute them, point by point with solid proof. I dare you!

By the way, if you don't appreciate that $265 Bush tax cut, why don't you send it back to the Federal government or, better yet, I will send you my address and you can send it to me!

 

As a genuine Balkanoid, I found your good/bad thing absolutely hysterical. As far as the Balkan-related facts go, it's all bang-on with only two minor cavils: Clinton didn't really impose regime change in Serbia, although he wrecked Slobo's credibility sufficiently for the Serbs to do it themselves, and there were death camps but not in Serbia proper (technically correct).

 

The world gets sadder and sadder. The situation in the Sudan literally breaks my heart.

 

Amusing.

Actually the stock market crashed under Bush, not Clinton. Things started to unravel in March 2000.

A list of the "bad" things on Bush's list would take me too long. I don't have time for it right now. Maybe a better idea is to read "What We've Lost." I hear it's a pretty enthralling and depressing read about the failures of Bush and his cronies.

So a simple question. Are we better off now than we were 4 years ago - 8 years ago? For most people, the answer is a resounding "no."

The tax freedom day thing is misleading. With incomes dropping (that is, those who are lucky enough to have an income in this economy), so does the tax bill. When the tax bill drops, tax freedom day comes sooner.

I'll say it again, though it's certainly a simplified view. When conservatives assess the state of the world, they look in their pockets. When liberals assess the state of the world, they look at the state of the schools, the state of healthcare, the state of health insurance, the state of peace (or not), the state of the environment, the state of jobs, the state of the economy, the state of poverty, the state of cultural wealth etc.

It's social wealth vs. personal wealth. What the conservatives don't realize is that personal wealth comes from social wealth. The whitecaps don't "pull" the waves; the whitecaps "ride" on top of the waves.

If the wealthy "provide" for the working class, a la Reagan's famous (infamous) trickle down theory, then show me a country that is composed entirely of wealthy people that is thriving.

I'm waiting....

 

Jimmy

You've found your niche in the politics forum. I so enjoy your posting here I don't at all miss our jousting about theology

 

Bush went to war in Iraq 900 US soldiers died - Very BAD...

It has been XX months since he went to war.. it is still going on... Very Very bad...


He left Osama in Afghanisatan and caught Saddam in Iraq as a cover-up.... VeryVeryVery bad...

He is sending millions of tax payers $s to Pakistan, the same country which supported Taliban and home to 1000s of terrorists... BADDDDDDD

 

Living in a 750K house puchased with stock gains under the Clinton Administration - Very good!

Seen income drop by 35% in the 3 1/2 years of the Bush administration despite increased education: Very bad.

Seen total tax bill increase under Bush administration: Very bad

Clinton is supposedly a bad man for skirting the draft

Bush is seen by some as some sort of cowboy for skirting his duty. (wow, he can have someone else land a plane on a carrier - wasting taxpayers money for a political picture opportunity) Cheney and Company seen as hero's by the Neo Cons for doing the same thing as Clinton.

Clinton gets BJ in office and lies about it: Bad

Bush gets 2 DUI's, is an admitted alcoholic, has alledgedly done cocaine (a felony in all 50 states): Good.

I can go on and on, but you get the point.

Can't want to see Edwards give a ass beating to Cheney. Cheney is such a chickenhawk -- typical of most asswipes.

 

Just as an interesting side note no one seems to care about. Bush has at least one DUI that I know of. Cheney has two. Laura killed a guy with her car. I wouldn't even let these people drive my car, much less my country.

 

So, you're saying that President Bush called up your state and local officials and made them raise your property tax? Wow! I didn't know that the President had such far-reaching powers. I always new I should have studied harder in government class instead of passing notes. If that's the case, we need to get Kerry in there quickly so he can make another phone call and put an end to this madness!

 

All Bush did was shift the tax burden. The COF had to lay off 6 officers and about the same amount of FF's. We now have one of the lowest per capita amount of cops of FF's on the street for a city the size of 200K. Most of this was due to a lower amount of taxes from the FEDS coming back to the state (interesting fact: California pays much more into the FED's than they get back. Wyoming on the other hand gets back nearly 2 dollars for every dollar they send to Washington). I will post the link that shows this -- I was reading about it a few days ago.


Yes, Laura did kill another human being (albeit on accident) and yet paid no penalty. Cheney and Bush were both arrested for DUI and suffered little if any penalty. Clinton committed civil perjury (which is prosecuted less than 5% of the time), and paid dearly for it with reputation, fines, and disbarment (as he should have been).

Time for Cheney and Bush to pay the piper. Or better yet, time for them to mosey on back to their podunk states for a forced retirement.

 

Thanks Bill. I do miss our jousting because I learn from you. I am sure I will be sparring with you again from time to time.

 

You know, you're right, this is absolutely horrible and inexcusable!

Now what was the victim's name? Oh yea, Mary Jo Kopechne.

 

Did you read what you just said? You said the stock market started to unravel in March 2000. Know who was in office then?

Bush took office January 2, 2001! Thank you for making my point. Clinton had a full nine months to turn the tide, he didn't.

Nice try, Tom.

 

Fundamentalist Christians no better than Islamic Fundamentalists

Either religion is dangerous when leaning too far to the (reactionary) right. Thanks to the Bush Administration's Christian Fundamentalism, the country is more divided than ever. Under Clinton, there was a surplus and hope for the future of America. Now our children can look forward to the multi-trillion (and still growing) deficit. I don't think we can afford this mounting debt and I hope Americans are smart enough to make a choice for the future.

 

Re: Fundamentalist Christians no better than Islamic Fundamentalists

While I am in general sympathy with what you are trying to say here, I must interject that Fundamentalist Christians (as troubling as they can be from the standpoint of legislating "sin" - i.e., the wasted dollars on the war on drugs, anti-sodomy laws, etc.) are NOT comparable to Fundamentalist Muslims.

Fundamentalist, or for that matter, "normal" Muslims are MUCH, MUCH worse. Muslim culture (and religion) justifies "honor killings" of their wives and daughters who may have been raped (through no fault of their own). Muslim culture (and religion) calls for the extermination of "world Jewry" (sound familiar?). Muslim culture (and religion) wants to either convert everyone on earth to Islam, or see us all fry in hell in this world and the next. Muslim culture (and religion) celebrates each new suicide bombing by congratulating the parents of the "martyr", and suggesting that other young people follow in the footsteps of destruction of infidels.

There's nothing like that going on in Fundamentalist Christianity, and it hasn't even approached this level of evil really ever, but certainly not since the 14th century or so.

Is there a general problem with "faith based religions", where one side uses one holy book to justify the killing and wholesale extermination of the followers of another holy book? Absolutely.

Is this a problem for both Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Muslims? Certainly.

Does that mean that Fundamentalist Christians are flying airplanes into buildings, slaughtering thousands of innocent people INTENTIONALLY, and slapping hands for killing female family members who have went astray? Nope.... not now, not ever, and not likely in the future.

The culprit in this dialogue is Islam, and its billion practitioners world-wide. There is no such thing as a "moderate Muslim", just varying degrees of insanity.

 

Carl,

I'm thankful that you point this out.

I think I agree with about 80% of your post, though I don't think mainstream Islam is to blame here. I do think its the doctrines of Al' Daab Wahaab (sp?) are. As far as I know, his branch of Islam would even blow up the dome of the rock. This is what Colin Gunton, former theology professor at King's College calls "the monism of the finite mind"---attempting to subject all particularity to a finite, monistic point in the material world. While Islam does not really have the resources or the reform away from this attitude currently, it isn't, without exception, that way with respect to the west. Some are, and more daily, but many are not.

I think this whole "War on terror" will only change if Islam reforms and becomes more modernized. I doubt, personally, if this will happen through our project in Iraq, if at all. The other option is to cut ourselves off from Islam entirely, in the west.

As far as I can tell, even though the ranks of Bin Laden's folk are swelling, they are still by far the minority globally. But I do think it's unbelievably demonic and pervasive.

Also, some fundamentalist Christians are pacifist. Don't forget that one. Some, also, do not equate the current state of Israel with God's eschatological kingdom.

Chris

 

Re: Fundamentalist Christians no better than Islamic Fundamentalists

Why is it that some folks cannot understand the economic consequences of 9-11? Why is it that some folks cannot understand the economic consequences of fighting the War on Terror (never mind Iraq)?

Does anyone really think had Gore been President during 9-11 we wouldn't have a deficit now?

 

Re: Re: Fundamentalist Christians no better than Islamic Fundamentalists

The real issue is not fundamentalism, it is fanatic, radical fundamentalism.

There is a huge difference between the fundamentalism of Charles Stanley, James Kennedy, and the Southern Baptist Convention compared to the Aryan groups, for example, or any other radical Christian groups (David Koresh's followers, etc).

Fundamentalism is not inherently evil. Conservatism is not inherently evil. Modernism is not inherently evil and liberalism is not inherently evil. It's the extreme elements within these groups that pose grave danger.