tim_duncan2000 said:
Clinton turned a blind eye to terrorism for 8 years, and I didn't hear the Democrats warning us about terrorism.
Nor the republicans... what's your point?
tim_duncan2000 said:
As freeandfun pointed out and as anyone who doesn't try to rewrite history to make Bush look bad will tell you, the economy really was not that good in 2000. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
There is a huge difference between "not that good" and "bad". The fact is under the Bush adminstration we have gone into heavy deficity spending, and the economy has gotten increasingly bad. They have done everything they can to hide this from the electorate, but no matter who wins, things are going to get very bad after the election. By this time next year, unemployment will be twice what it is today.
tim_duncan2000 said:
Also, a lot of the numbers like unemployment and other economic statistics are not much different than they were under Clinton. That's pretty good considering 9/11, corporate corruption, and the constant threat of terrorism (if a Democrat was in office, the biased media would be saying the same thing).
Do you understand how unemployment "numbers" are calculated? Lots of people who were considered unemployed under Clinton are now off the lists entirely. They are not counted as unemployed, but they still do not have a job. After one year, if you don't get a job, under most circumstance you are removed from the labor force and thus no longer count as unemployed.
Also, consider all the poeple who have been called up into the military, opening jobs for those who would otherwise be employed. This also hides the true unemployment numbers.
tim_duncan2000 said:
A lot of the so-called rich really are not that rich and many of them are small business owners.
LOL - the rich are not really rich? I suppose the rich are really just middle class? So what if they are small business owners? The fact is, as I've shown on this board (I think in this thread?), between 1946-79 (where we had a democrate congress) all sectors of the population shared fairly equally in income growth levels, generally all sectors about doubled their incomes over this time period. However, from 1980-present, where we've had mostly republican adminstrations and republican run congresses, the lowest 1/5th of the population has suffered a reduction in income, the next 60% has about held their position, the next 15% has more than doubled their incomes, and the richest 5% have enjoyed an 850% increase in their incomes. And these people need tax relief?
tim_duncan2000 said:
What are these "generally bad economic policies" you speak of?
Hmmm... Tax breaks for the rich. Rampant deficit spending. An increase in corporate subidies. etc...
tim_duncan2000 said:
How exactly has he raped the environment? Give me specific examples.
1) huge reductions in the "Superfund" program which is now bankrupt make toxic waste cleanups a thing of the past.
2) EPA no longer bans the sale of PCB contaminated land.
3) The "Health forests" program - which opens forests to nearly unregulated logging.
4) Failure to maintain our national parks, the $ that are allocated are mostly being used to build roads into unspoilt wilderness areas, clearly the intent is that in the future these will be opened to logging and mining.
5) Slashing of Conservation funding by almost $2 billion. This money is mostly used to remove invasive species, reduce stream and river bank erosion, and generally improve critical environmental habitats.
6) "Clean Skies" initative and "Clean Air Interstate" rule - allows more pollution than existing law and does nothing to curb CO2 pollution. Basically these replace the Clean Air Act with much less effective policies. Under the Bush/republican policy, we expect a 19% increase in CO2 emmisions by 2012.
7) Legislation to effective classify mercury as a non-hazardous material.
8) Failure to enact tax incentives for renuable and energy efficient technologies, cutting of R&D funding for such technologies, and pushing Congress to pass an energy bill that gives billions in tax subsidies to some of the worst polluters.
9) Cuts to the climate sciences program and stalling on any programs to reduce US contribution to global warming.
10) Reductions in the Clean Water Act. A reduction of 3/4 of a billion dollars in sewage and other clean water funding dealing with pollution problems in the Great Lakes.
11) Repeated attempts to open some of the most sensitive envrionmental areas to oil and natural gas companies.
tim_duncan2000 said:
As far as health care issues go, what do you propose? What about how the Democrats said they would do something about it but didn't from 92-00?
Ummm... the Democrats were making progress towards a basic national health care system in 92 and 93. In 2004, the Repblicans gained control of Congress and shot it down.
tim_duncan2000 said:
What "general freedoms" are you talking about? I always hear people mention this, but they usually can't give examples.
The freedom to assemble has been smashed. Freedom of speech has been severely limited (you cannot excercise free speech except where it is allowed). The Fed. gov't now can listen in on your phone conversations w/o a specific warrant. They can also hold you in jail without filing charges for however long they choose. The FBI has been harrassing protest groups with no history of violence. These are just a few examples.
Wade.
:firing: :2guns:
