25% of population ready to be led into fascist dictatorship

[jdsowa]

55% of of Bush supporters assume the 9/11 commission concluded that Iraq was providing support for Al Qaeda.

57% of Bush supporters think the Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had WMD............

This isn't even a matter of faith. It's the results printed in documents and reported in the news. That's over 25% of the population. Scary.


study:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_ ... 21_04.html

[andrew embassy]

Holy balls.

[bad_dude_69]

schwing! (state)

[marqueemoon]

YIKES!

[TrumpsHair]

Fuck! I wonder how many of us will migrate to Canada if Chimpy is re-elected?
Here are the stats:

75% believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

74% believe Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in agreements on trade.

72% believe Iraq had WMD or a program to develop them.

72% believe Bush supports the treaty banning landmines.

69% believe Bush supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

61% believe if Bush knew there were no WMD he would not have gone to war.

60% believe most experts believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

58% believe the Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had either WMD or a major program to develop them.

57% believe that the majority of people in the world would prefer to see Bush reelected.

56% believe most experts think Iraq had WMD.

55% believe the 9/11 report concluded Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.

51% believe Bush supports the Kyoto treaty.

20% believe Iraq was directly involved in 9/11.
These people are definitely not part of the Reality Based Community

[superluminalmagus]

I'm about 99% certain he's gonna fix the election again.

[djdrake13]

he's not my prez if he wins.. I'm joinin up with the anarchists!! lol

[jdsowa]

Noting that the dumbest portion of the country seems to trend Republican, it seems clear to me now that the Repub's desire to cut public education spending is really just an attempt to breed future generations of republicans! Brilliant, if I must say.

So, to all the liberals who said that vouchers were just a way to let wealthy people who send their kids to private schools save money, well--YOU'RE WRONG!

[swingdoc]

Noting that the dumbest portion of the country seems to trend Republican, it seems clear to me now that the Repub's desire to cut public education spending is really just an attempt to breed future generations of republicans! Brilliant, if I must say.

So, to all the liberals who said that vouchers were just a way to let wealthy people who send their kids to private schools save money, well--YOU'RE WRONG!

Currently there is an initiative here in WA to increase sales tax another 1%, which would place it just next to 10%, the highest in the US. It is estimated that it will bring in about 1 billion dollars. Its stated in the initiative that the money is supposed to be used only for public education. The people who are on the board as the managers of these funds are non-elected and not under any direct public supervision or responsibilty. There are no goals or stated benefits for these funds that have to met. Its just more money.

Conservatives are people who wish to spend their own money via the central or state government more wisely. The liberals are those who bitch about not getting enough entitlements... So you criticise that we actually want results and accountability before blindly throwing huge sums at our governement?
Grow up. The government aint your daddy. Or at least it shouldnt be. Stand on your own two feet man. I suppose as long as there are diaper wearin cry babys then the government always has a chance to completely control all aspects of public life, but hey, thats just my POV. Yah yah yah, Iraq war..Bush...blah blah blah. America is not about government entitlements. Its about freedom and opportunity. Our independence was based on separation from an oppressive over taxed, non representative government. Liberal mentality breeds poverty and dependence. Call us stupid, fine. And you're right , the socialistic agengda eventually take control cuz you'll have enough babys in poverty and there will be enough elitest liberal politicians that you'll eventually create a government dependant population, and we'll either collapse from poverty or takeover. But hey, America was great when it lastest. And that wont be the way I wanted it.
Funny, that things are the way they are now. When I was your age, people were suspicious of the government, and we used to declare our independence proudly. Now your generation just seems set on having the Big Boys (who really care about you...look at Kerry and his wife...they are a working mans pair if I ever saw one) take over. I dont get it.
PS Dont go off about Bush. Re-read. I have said nothin here about loving Bush. Lets see if you can actually make any arguments without saying how you hate Bush, or how stupid a person is for supporting Bush. Tough, aint it?
Central government control is wrong and will fail in this country. Its not like many of the other socialized countries that might be doing OK. We have no control of our borders. There's no strict American nationality. Sweden might work cause whats their immigrant rate? They control citizenship. America is set up as a country of independant people with no real nationality who wish to work for their rights, and support those around us in need individually and locally. But nooooo, you gotta give more and more to da man...
we'll soon enough da man is gonna spank ya.
IF you dont like what Bush is doing, then why in heck are ya gonna give more to the government. Cuz eventually there's gonna be someone worse than him, then worse than that, and so on.
Stop da madness.

Resist centralization, and work at your local levels to support those in need. Do it yourself.

A rant at the end of a sucky day.

[wayne kerr]

I just want someone else to do my thinking for me from now on. Life will be so much better.

SMH

[swingdoc]

PS,
ya'll have a good weekend.

Who's getting shitfaced?

[jdsowa]

I knew I could troll you in there.

I agree completely with reducing the role of the federal government. There's lots of waste & beauracracy out there. 70,000+ regulations on the books, etc. Education is a complicated matter, though. Accountability of schools is one thing. As long as it's all relative. Voucher programs are another matter, though. They'll give a rich family a voucher for a certain amount (so that their kid can continue to go to the same great private school they were already going to, but for less money), while a poor kid will get the same voucher--but it won't be quite enough for them to go to that same private school as the other kid, so they'll ultimately still be stuck at a shitty school with the rest of the poor kids just like they are now. You say 'stand on your own two feet', but these are children we're dealing with; who haven't had a chance to go out into the real world to make money on their own (obviously).

Bush is no fiscal conservative and has only ballooned the size of the government in record time. In addition to that, the Patriot Act increases the power of federal agencies & the White House has attempted to, in essence, write into law a ban on gay marriage. If the government isn't 'my daddy', then why is it trying to impose its morals on me?

Kerry is your average liberal, no doubt. But the republicans will handily control the senate after November. And we all witnessed the positive results of a liberal president & republican congress in the 90s. So if you truly believe in smaller government then voting against Bush is a no-brainer. There. I didn't call anyone an idiot. Besides, I didn't say all republicans were idiots. I just said lots of idiots were republicans.

[ubertar]

Noting that the dumbest portion of the country seems to trend Republican, it seems clear to me now that the Repub's desire to cut public education spending is really just an attempt to breed future generations of republicans! Brilliant, if I must say.

So, to all the liberals who said that vouchers were just a way to let wealthy people who send their kids to private schools save money, well--YOU'RE WRONG!

Currently there is an initiative here in WA to increase sales tax another 1%, which would place it just next to 10%, the highest in the US. It is estimated that it will bring in about 1 billion dollars. Its stated in the initiative that the money is supposed to be used only for public education. The people who are on the board as the managers of these funds are non-elected and not under any direct public supervision or responsibilty. There are no goals or stated benefits for these funds that have to met. Its just more money.

Conservatives are people who wish to spend their own money via the central or state government more wisely. The liberals are those who bitch about not getting enough entitlements... So you criticise that we actually want results and accountability before blindly throwing huge sums at our governement?
Grow up. The government aint your daddy. Or at least it shouldnt be. Stand on your own two feet man. I suppose as long as there are diaper wearin cry babys then the government always has a chance to completely control all aspects of public life, but hey, thats just my POV. Yah yah yah, Iraq war..Bush...blah blah blah. America is not about government entitlements. Its about freedom and opportunity. Our independence was based on separation from an oppressive over taxed, non representative government. Liberal mentality breeds poverty and dependence. Call us stupid, fine. And you're right , the socialistic agengda eventually take control cuz you'll have enough babys in poverty and there will be enough elitest liberal politicians that you'll eventually create a government dependant population, and we'll either collapse from poverty or takeover. But hey, America was great when it lastest. And that wont be the way I wanted it.
Funny, that things are the way they are now. When I was your age, people were suspicious of the government, and we used to declare our independence proudly. Now your generation just seems set on having the Big Boys (who really care about you...look at Kerry and his wife...they are a working mans pair if I ever saw one) take over. I dont get it.
PS Dont go off about Bush. Re-read. I have said nothin here about loving Bush. Lets see if you can actually make any arguments without saying how you hate Bush, or how stupid a person is for supporting Bush. Tough, aint it?
Central government control is wrong and will fail in this country. Its not like many of the other socialized countries that might be doing OK. We have no control of our borders. There's no strict American nationality. Sweden might work cause whats their immigrant rate? They control citizenship. America is set up as a country of independant people with no real nationality who wish to work for their rights, and support those around us in need individually and locally. But nooooo, you gotta give more and more to da man...
we'll soon enough da man is gonna spank ya.
IF you dont like what Bush is doing, then why in heck are ya gonna give more to the government. Cuz eventually there's gonna be someone worse than him, then worse than that, and so on.
Stop da madness.

Resist centralization, and work at your local levels to support those in need. Do it yourself.

A rant at the end of a sucky day.

That is such a crock of shit. The government (except where there is corruption) represents the people. We elect people to represent our interests. Through government, we can do things we couldn't possibly do individually, like space exploration, and all kinds of basic scientific research which, while it may lead to profit for companies eventually, doesn't promise solid monetary gains in short enough time to be in a corporation's interest in doing. Government is a way of doing things collectively we don't have the power or resources to do individually that private industry either isn't willing to do (basic scientific research) or that we wouldn't trust private businesses to do (compulsory education, ie everything up until college). It's a way to pool our collective resources to do things for the greater good. It's not all about handouts. Welfare is a miniscule portion of both state and federal budgets. It's brought up as a way to piss off people like yourself, workers who resent people living "on the dole". It's a red herring used to divide and conquer: get the workers pissed at the poor, so they don't pay attention to the fat cat CEOs making millions as companies are driven into the ground, rewarded with golden parachutes even as they're caught profiting from insider trading. They only went after Martha Stewart to distract from the fact that they haven't done shit to Ken Lay. Where's Kenny Boy now? Probably sipping margaritas in Bermuda. Fuck.
A lot of what the government does (when it's not being run by corporations, as it is in the Bush administration) is keep an eye on corporations, to keep YOU from getting screwed. If some chemical plant dumps toxic waste in your town and gives your whole family cancer, and the EPA does nothing about it because you helped Bush get elected and the head of the EPA is a former lobbyist for that industry, don't come crying to me, all BOO FUCKING HOO.

[swingdoc]

I knew I could troll you in there.

hehe hook line n sinker. Thanks, there goes my guitar practice.

Bush is no fiscal conservative. If the government isn't 'my daddy', then why is it trying to impose its morals on me?

No shit. Bush is left of Montreal. Morals, a whole new conversation. What is the basis of any persons decision making? My argument is that any decision has some fundamental principle on which it is based. Some may say...based on utilitarianism, some may say "ethics". I dont think that any one principle should be rejected because it is also supported in a persons religion. ie it is not the religion supported through the ideal, but the ideal is reflected in the religion. No less available for debate or criticism.
For example. Murder. We may all agree that random killing of people is bad. We may also agree that it is the responsibilty of the government to reflect this value, and to enforce it. But why is that? is that because of utilitarian values? Because if we allowed random violence other societal values couldnt exist? Regardless of which categories this value falls into, we all kinda believe it, but still its not really considered a "religious" concept. Yet, it still exists as a fundamental "Christian value".
So, when a value is expressed by a person, then consider for its worth. I tend not to seperate a persons values from their religious beliefs. They are inseperable. If I believe something, I believe it. But just because it also happens to be supported by my religion doesnt mean it shouldnt be valued. A human value is a value regardless of its origin or category. I know some of you may not believe it, but a vasty majority of that which I hold as a fundamental principle by which I make my decisions, has been carefully considered in relation to all sorts of societal angles. Not just because the Pope said so.
Still, I know what you're saying when you're speaking of "forcing his moral beliefs", but any move the federal government makes....any....is "forcing their beliefs" upon its citizens. Whether those pricinciplas are also reflected in religious beliefs or not. Thats called law. Thats why I'm kinda into the smaller the feds the better. They need a defined role, and that role should not extend into every aspect of our life.

Kerry is your average liberal, no doubt. But the republicans will handily control the senate after November. And we all witnessed the positive results of a liberal president & republican congress in the 90s. So if you truly believe in smaller government then voting against Bush is a no-brainer. There. I didn't call anyone an idiot. Besides, I didn't say all republicans were idiots. I just said lots of idiots were republicans.

OK, these threads will go on forever. A billion topics. But I didnt think the 90's were all that great. I thought we were complacent regarding corporate leadership, the market was dangerously overpriced, and we kind of ignored a foreign threat. I just very much disagree that Bush represents a larger federal government than Kerry. Kerry is a true liberal democrat, and will undoubtably move towards larger and larger social programs. Bush has huge problems, acknowledged, but still for me, Kerry is a doorstep for socialism, so I just cant go there. Thats one of my greatest aversions when thinking politically.

That is such a crock of shit. The government (except where there is corruption) represents the people. We elect people to represent our interests. Through government, we can do things we couldn't possibly do individually, like space exploration, and all kinds of basic scientific research which, while it may lead to profit for companies eventually, doesn't promise solid monetary gains in short enough time to be in a corporation's interest in doing. Government is a way of doing things collectively we don't have the power or resources to do individually that private industry either isn't willing to do (basic scientific research) or that we wouldn't trust private businesses to do (compulsory education, ie everything up until college). It's a way to pool our collective resources to do things for the greater good. It's not all about handouts. Welfare is a miniscule portion of both state and federal budgets. It's brought up as a way to piss off people like yourself, workers who resent people living "on the dole".

I couldnt disagree with you more here.
The goverment is supposed to represent the people. Does Bush represent you? What went wrong? Did Nazi Germany represent their population? What happened? What happens is that an ill defined collection of people who assume power and control via political means, enforced by military et al, can lose touch and no longer represent people. Look at history. The entire cycle of human existence is a repeat of central control, oppression, followed by revolution and rebuild. Every new government says.."Power to the People", right? So why are we different? What do you think is the fundamental balance that will prevent the United States from falling right in line with every other Fed gov that has ever existed and oppresed?
Federal governments develop a life of their own. The final common pathway is ownership. Ownership = control. Taxes = ownership. When a governement demands more and more tax, no one individual is able to exist in an independant fashion apart from said government. A person therfore becomes reliant, and there it is, control. Oh...and it will always be sold as a bill of goods for the people. Thats the lie. Thats the danger. Be vigilant. Dont relinquish your individualism, because thats a precious commodity that only another revolution will produce.

Beer.
Now.

[ubertar]

The goverment is supposed to represent the people. Does Bush represent you? What went wrong? Did Nazi Germany represent their population?

It's Bush's job to represent all Americans, including me, so yes, he represents me (although poorly). Nazi Germany was not a democracy, so it's a false analogy. If your elected representative is not representing you, vote him/her out. If you don't believe elected officials can represent you, you don't believe in democracy (at least not representative democracy). Direct democracy is nothing more than oligarchy, IMO. At it's worst it would lead to violent oppression, and at it's sorry best it leads to California.

What form of govt do you want, if not representative democracy?

Are you against government programs that aren't "entitlements"? Are you against the space program? The Hubble telescope?