Quote:

---

George W Bush is simply a step back like any other leader who is very religious. Religion stops progress, just take a look in the middle (age) east.

---

Quote:

---

I disagree, muerte. History isn't concerned with the policies of leaders, it is concerned with the overall results of their administration; in this case, the Iraq War.

---

Quote:

---

Funny how something that was considered previously to be on topic - the comparison of Iraq fatalities with previous wars or road fatalities - is now ignored, presumably for being off topic.

---

Quote:

---

I didn't misunderstand or misinterpret your posts, you seem fixated with assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is unable to comprehend your arguments.

---

Quote:

---

I merely disagreed with them for the reasons I mentioned, reasons that remain essentially undiscussed, especially in the past war-iraq comparsion.

---

Quote:

---

Its not a rule here no, but someone once suggested debate was defined as:

"It's a situation where someone states their opinion, someone else then offers their counter opinion, and the discussion goes back and forth.".

Who could that possibly have been?

---

Quote:

---

If you want to attract people to debate topic you need to show some interest in following your own definition of it rather than cutting discussions short once you've stated/clarified your opinion. That's not a debate, its a person on a soapbox.

---

Quote:

---

And here is yet another misunderstanding about some perceived fixation of mine on misunderstandings.

No doubt you believe that I have some obligation to clear this up? I don't.

---

Quote:

---

That's right, you stated your opinion, I stated my opinion. Just because I don't find your point worth commenting on again doesn't mean I didn't respect your position. And if I left off making anymore comments it's because I saw no need to discuss it further. If you have more to say on your points go ahead..we are all listening now.

---

Quote:

---

That is a load of crap.
If I can find it, I can quote whne you first came on here that Debating is basically the only entertainment you find amusing.

---

Quote:

---

The overall results of the administration do not hinge upon the Iraq war, certainly not for me, although maybe it will for some others; I admit it will play a large role

---

Quote:

---

Afghanistan is still looking positive despite some recent violence and is heading towards remaining a positive for Bush.

---

Quote:

---

Improved economy here at home

---

Quote:

---

stronger inter-agency policies also are viewed as positives for Bush

---

Quote:

---

along with increased domestic security

---

Quote:

---

It will play a very large part. Like all persons in a position of power or influence, they are typically known for just one or two things attributed to them. In the case of GWB, the Iraqi war is by far the most prominent event defining his presidency. Anything else he has done is small by comparison.

---

Quote:

---

I would be interested to hear just what Bush did to improve the economy.....that's assuming the economy really has improved, which is debatable.

---

Quote:

---

How Taxes Work . . .
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on — it does make you think!!
Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.
That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. “But he got $7!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I only saved a dollar, too . . . It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!”.
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man, “why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

---

Quote:

---

For some reason the president always gets blamed when the economy is bad, or credited when it is good. In reality the president has almost nothing to do with the economy. The president has virtually no power over the economy, nor does anyone else, collectively or individually.

---

Quote:

---

stronger inter-agency policies also are viewed as positives for Bush

---

Quote:

---

Viewed as positive by some, true, but viewed as negative by others. I think it's yet to be seen if the changes were positive or negative. I agree with at least some of the theory behind these changes, but I still have a problem with it. Namely it was done quickly in a near state of panic, without proper debate and investigation into all the ramifications. To completely overhaul the structure of several agencies in such a short period of time is just plain risky in my opinion.

---

Quote:

---

along with increased domestic security

---

Quote:

---

OK, maybe. But let me ask you what role Bush played in it? Congress and the various involved agencies played a major role. Did Bush actually come up with any of the ideas, or merely rubber stamp what his advisors and others told him was best? I admit I hate Bush and I'm biased. But the truth is I really don't know what role he actually played.

---

Quote:

---

Which leads to....

I forget who, but someone else brought up the privacy issue. How do you feel about phone taps and random searches of people without due cause? I don't know the details about the phone taps, so I can't specifically address that except to say it's very questionable. But random searches of people is clearly a violation of the Bill of Rights in my opinion. Do you feel that "national security" is a higher priority than the Bill of Rights? That's an excuse that has been used many times in many nations to justify the violation of civil rights. If another 911 is the cost of securing the Bill of Rights, then so be it....everything has a cost. If we are not willing to pay the price, it's nothing more than a slap in the face of everyone who has died in the past to secure those rights in the first place. Aside from the Iraqi war, this is probably the next worst thing to come out of the Bush administration...mainly because it opens up a floodgate of future violations of our rights justified by "national security".

---

Quote:

---

Muerte, it is in fact customary to continue to talk about a point beyond the opening arguments.  Dropping things after you both have said what you think is like agreeing to disagree- which is not the point of this thread.  We are here to talk about Bush, and his policies, and wars, and so on.  We aren't here to say "This is that I think, and this is what you think.  Okay, let's go our seperate ways now."  As PH said, that's not debating, that's standing on a soapbox.

---

Quote:

---

Regarding tax cuts- The tax cut theory is one thing when you actually have enough money that you can give out tax cuts, and entirely something else when we don't, as is right now.

---

Quote:

---

Everyone is undergoing major budget cuts and a lack of funding right now, and we have a massive that just isn't going to go away.  If our economy is so stunningly good, as Bush tells us repeatedly, then why isn't the debt going down?

---

Quote:

---

Why aren't people getting funding?

---

Quote:

---

Yes, we are told repeatedly that this lack of privacy is only going to be during the war.  This may be true.

But do you realize how @#$%ing long this war will be?  Even if, by some miracle, Iraq becomes a model democracy, the real war that we're not fighting now will go on- the war against terror.  Naturally, the lack of privacy will continue to go on until the end of that war- if it has an end.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Muerte, it is in fact customary to continue to talk about a point beyond the opening arguments.  Dropping things after you both have said what you think is like agreeing to disagree- which is not the point of this thread.  We are here to talk about Bush, and his policies, and wars, and so on.  We aren't here to say "This is that I think, and this is what you think.  Okay, let's go our seperate ways now."  As PH said, that's not debating, that's standing on a soapbox.

---

So count you in for instituting a community-wide "beat a dead horse" style of debate right? I will reiterate that I saw nothing further I felt needed any response from me. If you have a comment on 'privatehudsons' point in question here than please make it already, I don't. Am I being held to a different standard now because of that? Look, I understand the whole, "pounce on the G.W.B. supporter attitude around here, I get it. You don't like my arrogant posting style, I hear you. You and yours are paragons of politeness and virtue and all who don't obey you are verbally flogged, message received! But don't you think you guys are carrying this particular point a bit too far?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Regarding tax cuts- The tax cut theory is one thing when you actually have enough money that you can give out tax cuts, and entirely something else when we don't, as is right now.

---

That particular point is based on the fallacy that the money belongs to the government. It does not. G.W.B. didn't "give" anything, tax cuts are a reduction in government theivery from the public, not a windfall check from some fairy. It was the people's money to begin with, not the governments.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Everyone is undergoing major budget cuts and a lack of funding right now, and we have a massive that just isn't going to go away.  If our economy is so stunningly good, as Bush tells us repeatedly, then why isn't the debt going down?

---

It's starting to go down ( albeit slowly ) now that government spending is begining to be curtailed. Read my post again though for additional clarity ( just so I don't have to repeat myself please ) I did outline the reasons why I feel your position here is tenable, but I also pointed out that multiple factors are included. Defecit reduction isn't the sole indicator of an improving economy.

---

Quote:

---

Why aren't people getting funding?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Yes, we are told repeatedly that this lack of privacy is only going to be during the war.  This may be true.

But do you realize how @#$%ing long this war will be?  Even if, by some miracle, Iraq becomes a model democracy, the real war that we're not fighting now will go on- the war against terror.  Naturally, the lack of privacy will continue to go on until the end of that war- if it has an end.

---

Hmm, a war without end. Sounds like the Democratic imposed "War on Poverty"  we've had for 60 years now or the Bi-partisan "War on Drugs" for the last few decades. I'll admit the concept of the neverending war isn't new; it also isn't necesarily a given. I submit to you that if Democrats and Republicans could cross the aisle a bit more we  could probably have this wrapped up in a few years or even less than a decade. Sound far fetched? Why? Your "never ending war" idea is much more unlikely, imho.

---

Quote:

---

As for the U.S. having completely halted all attempts at fighting the War on Terror please show us something that supports that claim other than your personal opinion, that would be courteous imo.

---

Quote:

---

Okay, I'll lay off.  But it's frustrating to see all our points dropped because that's just the way you do it.

---

Quote:

---

He instituted his tax cuts as soon as the economy showed signs of down turning.

---

Quote:

---

George Bush began his campaign in 99 with the promise to cut taxes while Clinton's golden economy was still singing.

---