Turfgrass said:
$ 350,000 and then they're pigs. It's actually the exact dollar amount that I will become a republican because then it will benefit me.
Reasons to Vote 4 Bush and the MAJOR ISSUES!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter Scott4USC
- Start date
$ 350,000 and then they're pigs. It's actually the exact dollar amount that I will become a republican because then it will benefit me.
BobbyBlueChip said:
So someone who eventually works his way up to 350,000 are usually doing so late in life, after having worked their way up in their professions over a period of decades.
Genuinely rich people who have never worked a day in their lives are unaffected by income taxes, except on what they are currently earning, which may be a tiny fraction of what they own.
In other words, soak the RICH taxes do not in fact soak the rich. They soak people who are currently earning the rewards of having contributed to the economy.
High income taxes punish people for becoming properous.
When tax rates are cut, tax revenues go up. The whole point is...to encourage more economic activity, and more activity generates more tax revenues.
But such facts are simply passed over in utter silence in the media, and in much of academia because the political left has a huge vested interest in the concept of "CLASS". Income is not always wealth.
People seem to think that the role of government is to make them better off. Sorry to break this to you, but politicians are not supposed to make you better off. That's up to you. If you want to be better off you do something about it. Politicians are supposed to keep the government out of your hair while you're trying to better yourself ... and to keep you out of other people's hair at the same time. A frightening truism: Freedom cannot survive the number of Americans who think that the government is there to take care of them.
Nobody is asking anybody to soak anybody. Inherited wealth is what I want taxed more than anything. This country was founded on the belief that your own determination and will would be what determines your success over life, but the United States is marked by social stagnation and not mobility. That?s how you end up with a Blue Blood Royal?s son in the oval office while winning (sic) the vote in a state governed by his brother. And when Forbes sends out there wealthiest Americans, 3 out of the top 5 have the same last name. But now coming from a wealthy family means has more to do with success than anything other factor ? statistically.
One of the biggest misconceptions is the fact that a higher marginal tax stifles investment because it?s additional investment is no longer worth the risk. It ignores the fact that this Country became the world economic leader in a time when marginal tax rates were in the 70th percentile and during the 50?s was in the 90%. With higher tax rates, individuals and corporations still try and accumulate wealth(because it?s the only game in town) and are more apt to take risk.
Any good government should aspire to more than just not separating a man and his money. Just because it?s good for business does not mean that it?s good for the Country.
One of the biggest misconceptions is the fact that a higher marginal tax stifles investment because it?s additional investment is no longer worth the risk. It ignores the fact that this Country became the world economic leader in a time when marginal tax rates were in the 70th percentile and during the 50?s was in the 90%. With higher tax rates, individuals and corporations still try and accumulate wealth(because it?s the only game in town) and are more apt to take risk.
Any good government should aspire to more than just not separating a man and his money. Just because it?s good for business does not mean that it?s good for the Country.
Well, BBC, I see that we will never see eye to eye on taxes. You think everything is fine and RICH folks should be forced at the end of a gun to pay the majority of the taxes for the "Rest of us".
I on the other hand, think America is in trouble because Americans have lost their love of freedom. Americans no longer want to be truly free. They want government to be their provider as well as their protector. They don't want to take the responsibility for their own employment, their own retirement and their own health care. They don't want to be responsible for the education of their own children ... preferring, instead, to hand their children over to the government to be educated. They don't even want to be responsible for what they watch on TV or listen to on the radio.
I take not one dime from anyone that I do not earn. I am OFFENDED by programs that take my tax dollars and give them away in this manner and I am sick of it. As a taxpayer, I should not have to suffer the emotional abuse that comes with watching MY government that I pay for, consistently favor worthless citizens over those who are productive. Are there instances where these systems are needed? Yes. However, it is time for radical change in our welfare state.
I believe that the first step is to implement the "trade your card" program. When you get on welfare(those that are truely slackers and are the armpit of society), you hand in your voter registration card. When you return to the work place, you get your right to vote back. Those who cannot manage their own lives should have NO say in the lives of those of us who can.
Just my $.02
I on the other hand, think America is in trouble because Americans have lost their love of freedom. Americans no longer want to be truly free. They want government to be their provider as well as their protector. They don't want to take the responsibility for their own employment, their own retirement and their own health care. They don't want to be responsible for the education of their own children ... preferring, instead, to hand their children over to the government to be educated. They don't even want to be responsible for what they watch on TV or listen to on the radio.
I take not one dime from anyone that I do not earn. I am OFFENDED by programs that take my tax dollars and give them away in this manner and I am sick of it. As a taxpayer, I should not have to suffer the emotional abuse that comes with watching MY government that I pay for, consistently favor worthless citizens over those who are productive. Are there instances where these systems are needed? Yes. However, it is time for radical change in our welfare state.
I believe that the first step is to implement the "trade your card" program. When you get on welfare(those that are truely slackers and are the armpit of society), you hand in your voter registration card. When you return to the work place, you get your right to vote back. Those who cannot manage their own lives should have NO say in the lives of those of us who can.
Just my $.02
Neo-Cons distorted view of reality is tuly pathetic and nauseating.
"...a blind man talking to the deaf..."
They don't call em "Cons" for nothing.
"...a blind man talking to the deaf..."
They don't call em "Cons" for nothing.
Two men in a row boat fishing for whales, the book doesn?t say if they catch any or not, but if you lick the back page it tastes like kool-aid.
Turfgrass says:
"When you get on welfare(those that are truely slackers and are the armpit of society), you hand in your voter registration card. When you return to the work place, you get your right to vote back. Those who cannot manage their own lives should have NO say in the lives of those of us who can."
Well, now that just about says it all doesn't it? Here we have your typical "angry white male" in his 40's most likely. So those on Welfare are slackers? Did it ever occur to your pea-brain that a lot of these people may be single mothers whose husbands abandoned their kids? Who can't afford child-care, a car, car insurance, rent. How about let's take away the voting rights of all those collecting unemployment too huh? That way the masses of people that Bush II put out of work won't be able to vote against him. All you do is whine about "all the taxes" you pay. You ought to be proud to pay taxes living in this country. Who do you think pays for all those underpaid men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who do you think pays the salaries and VA benefits of the thousands of disabled and retired veterans in this country? The tax money going into these things dwarfs any "welfare" distributions.
North Carolina ain't exactly burdening its citizens with high taxes so take your whining somewhere else.
"When you get on welfare(those that are truely slackers and are the armpit of society), you hand in your voter registration card. When you return to the work place, you get your right to vote back. Those who cannot manage their own lives should have NO say in the lives of those of us who can."
Well, now that just about says it all doesn't it? Here we have your typical "angry white male" in his 40's most likely. So those on Welfare are slackers? Did it ever occur to your pea-brain that a lot of these people may be single mothers whose husbands abandoned their kids? Who can't afford child-care, a car, car insurance, rent. How about let's take away the voting rights of all those collecting unemployment too huh? That way the masses of people that Bush II put out of work won't be able to vote against him. All you do is whine about "all the taxes" you pay. You ought to be proud to pay taxes living in this country. Who do you think pays for all those underpaid men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who do you think pays the salaries and VA benefits of the thousands of disabled and retired veterans in this country? The tax money going into these things dwarfs any "welfare" distributions.
North Carolina ain't exactly burdening its citizens with high taxes so take your whining somewhere else.
Ah, the pitiful poor women with the two kids excuse. I knew some leftist ?elitist? would throw that one out. I notice you didn?t read the part that said, ?those that are truly slackers and are the armpit of society?, and while your quoting me, you should read this part too, ?Are there instances where these systems are needed? Yes.??But nobody EVER abuses free money right?
And yes, I do know exactly who pays for all those things you mention?the top 50% of all income earners.
By the way at what point exactly should stop paying taxes you commie? Should I have to pay 50%?75%?100% of my income? Then the government could distribute to each according to need... right? In case you missed it the Soviet Union collapsed a long time ago, too bad for you I guess.
Why don?t you take you ass of your shoulders for a second and maybe think that there might be a better solution other than CLASS warfare, but I guess I?m just insensitive southerner who should just be happy that I live here and pay what they tell me.
And yes, I do know exactly who pays for all those things you mention?the top 50% of all income earners.
By the way at what point exactly should stop paying taxes you commie? Should I have to pay 50%?75%?100% of my income? Then the government could distribute to each according to need... right? In case you missed it the Soviet Union collapsed a long time ago, too bad for you I guess.
Why don?t you take you ass of your shoulders for a second and maybe think that there might be a better solution other than CLASS warfare, but I guess I?m just insensitive southerner who should just be happy that I live here and pay what they tell me.
Turfgrass, you are out to lunch. Some of the statements you make are incredibly dumb.
Genuinely rich people do more to get their taxes reduced than any other group of people. You say that income is only a small portion of their wealth. Granted, but then why cut capital gains and inheritance taxes? At least these taxes get a greater piece of people who "aren't affected" by taxes.
Genuinely rich people do more to get their taxes reduced than any other group of people. You say that income is only a small portion of their wealth. Granted, but then why cut capital gains and inheritance taxes? At least these taxes get a greater piece of people who "aren't affected" by taxes.
Nick Douglas
I didn?t say country?s attacked the WTC, I said terrorists. Namely Al Qaeda, whose headquarters were based in Afghanistan and other countries. Which if you don?t know is the world wide network of terrorists.
YOU CAN?T DO THAT UNLESS YOU INVADE THE COUNTRY!!!!!
You are under the impression it is the citizens of Iraq who are conducting the resistance.
The resistance is from former Saddam holdovers and outside terrorists. That is the resistance. Not from the innocent citizens in Iraq.
Poll after poll shows overwhelming US support from citizens from Iraq.
I didn?t say country?s attacked the WTC, I said terrorists. Namely Al Qaeda, whose headquarters were based in Afghanistan and other countries. Which if you don?t know is the world wide network of terrorists.
YOU CAN?T DO THAT UNLESS YOU INVADE THE COUNTRY!!!!!
You are under the impression it is the citizens of Iraq who are conducting the resistance.
The resistance is from former Saddam holdovers and outside terrorists. That is the resistance. Not from the innocent citizens in Iraq.
Poll after poll shows overwhelming US support from citizens from Iraq.
I am happy that you agree there is no un-biased news sources so why do you think the Fox News channel is any less accurate than CNN and the big 3 networks? (which have a liberal slant to the news)
kosar :nono: :nono: :nono:
After people read this post, your poltical mythology will be considered inane.
You seem to think only Bush wanted to oust Saddam. There were many Demon-crats that hopped on board. Here?s a list of prominent Demon-crats & what they said from Clinton to sen john kerry leading up to the war in early ?03!!!!! ( I can?t give a more eloquent reason for the Iraq war than kerry?s speech )
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998
"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." >- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Anyone who can read & comprehend can clearly see that these Demon-crats felt that WMD?s were real & the threat of Saddam was real, which had to be dealt with swiftly & with force if necessary.
*******************************
WHY NOT???
Are you some Middle East expert that you can confidently say with certainty that Iraq will never be a peaceful, democratic country. I think you wish it doesn?t happen, so Bush won?t have the legacy of creating lasting peace in the Middle East, & win a Nobel prize in the process.
So what!!! They supported the legislation, they also take responsibility for it. Although I have no problem with it.
If the UN felt there were no WMD?s, then why did the UN Security Counsil pass Resolution 1441 just before the war???
Read highlighted excerpt:
Resolution 1441 (2002)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4644th meeting, on
8 November 2002
The Security Council,
Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
*************
LA Times article : UN demands that Iraq disarm just prior to the war. Why do this if the UN said there were no WMD's???
Obviously, the UN thought they were there, like the DEMS & BUSH.
SHOWDOWN WITH IRAQ; Iraq Bends a Bit on Missiles; Baghdad agrees 'in principle' to destroy arms but might not meet the Saturday deadline. A draft U.N. report cites Iraqi shortcomings.; [HOME EDITION]
Maggie Farley. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 28, 2003. pg. A.1
The destruction of the missiles has become a crucial test case of Iraq's compliance with U.N. demands that it disarm. If Iraq misses the Saturday deadline to begin the process, Blix could make an emergency report to the Security Council that could lead them to find Iraq in "material breach" of the resolution mandating Baghdad's disarmament. That finding could trigger military action.
It sure seems you are ignoring the ?93 WTC bombing, US embassy bombings, & the bombing of the USS Cole, much like Clinton did, which escalated to 9/11 without the ?proper response? from Clinton.
Alright, the USS Cole did not sink, but was severely damaged with 17 sailors killed and 39 injured.. I guess that?s not enough for you liberals to take notice.
I believe the DEM quotes above should satisfy any liberal about the threat Saddam imposed.The Bush response was appropriate and with the necessary increased security measures required by the circumstances and fully endorsed by the Demon-crats, just maybe that?s the reason there are no more US attacks. I have no idea what Gore would have done (probably nothing), but I?ll take my chances with Bush anyday.
VIVA BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Now that I disposed of Kosar are their any other challengers? I noticed that Nick Douglas, DJV, BobbyBlueChip, and StevieD all stepped down! :142lmao:
After people read this post, your poltical mythology will be considered inane.
You seem to think only Bush wanted to oust Saddam. There were many Demon-crats that hopped on board. Here?s a list of prominent Demon-crats & what they said from Clinton to sen john kerry leading up to the war in early ?03!!!!! ( I can?t give a more eloquent reason for the Iraq war than kerry?s speech )
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998
"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." >- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Anyone who can read & comprehend can clearly see that these Demon-crats felt that WMD?s were real & the threat of Saddam was real, which had to be dealt with swiftly & with force if necessary.
*******************************
WHY NOT???
Are you some Middle East expert that you can confidently say with certainty that Iraq will never be a peaceful, democratic country. I think you wish it doesn?t happen, so Bush won?t have the legacy of creating lasting peace in the Middle East, & win a Nobel prize in the process.
So what!!! They supported the legislation, they also take responsibility for it. Although I have no problem with it.
If the UN felt there were no WMD?s, then why did the UN Security Counsil pass Resolution 1441 just before the war???
Read highlighted excerpt:
Resolution 1441 (2002)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4644th meeting, on
8 November 2002
The Security Council,
Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
*************
LA Times article : UN demands that Iraq disarm just prior to the war. Why do this if the UN said there were no WMD's???
Obviously, the UN thought they were there, like the DEMS & BUSH.
SHOWDOWN WITH IRAQ; Iraq Bends a Bit on Missiles; Baghdad agrees 'in principle' to destroy arms but might not meet the Saturday deadline. A draft U.N. report cites Iraqi shortcomings.; [HOME EDITION]
Maggie Farley. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 28, 2003. pg. A.1
The destruction of the missiles has become a crucial test case of Iraq's compliance with U.N. demands that it disarm. If Iraq misses the Saturday deadline to begin the process, Blix could make an emergency report to the Security Council that could lead them to find Iraq in "material breach" of the resolution mandating Baghdad's disarmament. That finding could trigger military action.
It sure seems you are ignoring the ?93 WTC bombing, US embassy bombings, & the bombing of the USS Cole, much like Clinton did, which escalated to 9/11 without the ?proper response? from Clinton.
Alright, the USS Cole did not sink, but was severely damaged with 17 sailors killed and 39 injured.. I guess that?s not enough for you liberals to take notice.
I believe the DEM quotes above should satisfy any liberal about the threat Saddam imposed.The Bush response was appropriate and with the necessary increased security measures required by the circumstances and fully endorsed by the Demon-crats, just maybe that?s the reason there are no more US attacks. I have no idea what Gore would have done (probably nothing), but I?ll take my chances with Bush anyday.
VIVA BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Now that I disposed of Kosar are their any other challengers? I noticed that Nick Douglas, DJV, BobbyBlueChip, and StevieD all stepped down! :142lmao:
Nick Douglas said:
OK Nick, please enlighten me with your utopian system in which taxes should be paid. Better yet I?m just going to keep on eating my lunch and when your finished just let me know how much I have to kick in.
www.fairtax.org
Does anyone ever remember the fallacies of our intelligence agencies and its role in Bush heading into Iraq. It is obvious that pre 9/11 and right afte it, our CIA and FBI agencies were basically inept and as disorganized as they had been in their respective histories. Do any one you take that into consideration when discussing Bush's decision to head into Iraq. He made those decisions with intelligence that was incorrect. However, we all know it is incorrect because of 20-20 hindsight. It's easy to rip apart his decision to invade and overthrow because we all know now they were not a direct threat. Right before 9/11, though, the entire country pretty much favored the decision to invade because they believed, as did our president, that Iraq and Saddam were direct threats. I think a lot of you forget that at the time of the decision, with the facts on the table and the recent events of 9/11, it was the right decision.
While on the topic of 9/11, I think a lot of you, not by fault of your own, have really forgotten what happened that day. It's not your fault. You may live in different parts of the country. You don't have to drive by NYC every day. You don't have to be reminded of the horrors of that day every time you see that cityscape and the twin towers aren't there. But I think you need to try on the shoes to understand from some people's perspective. If it hit in YOUR backyard, and you were constantly reminded of it, you might have different feelings. I think that most from the tri-state area, as I am, can attest to that.
And finally, my last thought. I am young and by no means set in my political affiliations. My question to you liberal guys on this board is, what would a democratic president have done right after 9/11. If it's what Scott said, put more diplomatic pressure on Iraq, than I say to hell with that. If you will tell me that is what they would have done, than I will be voting for Bush this year. Because following 9/11, he did what a majority of Americans wanted. He took action in defeding our country, in defending EVERY one of your backyards from the threat of terror. I will agree that I question why we are in Iraq and what/if the plan is. But I do know I feel safer knowing that Bush is willing to take action to defend our country, a feeling I would definitely NOT have with a democratic president.
While on the topic of 9/11, I think a lot of you, not by fault of your own, have really forgotten what happened that day. It's not your fault. You may live in different parts of the country. You don't have to drive by NYC every day. You don't have to be reminded of the horrors of that day every time you see that cityscape and the twin towers aren't there. But I think you need to try on the shoes to understand from some people's perspective. If it hit in YOUR backyard, and you were constantly reminded of it, you might have different feelings. I think that most from the tri-state area, as I am, can attest to that.
And finally, my last thought. I am young and by no means set in my political affiliations. My question to you liberal guys on this board is, what would a democratic president have done right after 9/11. If it's what Scott said, put more diplomatic pressure on Iraq, than I say to hell with that. If you will tell me that is what they would have done, than I will be voting for Bush this year. Because following 9/11, he did what a majority of Americans wanted. He took action in defeding our country, in defending EVERY one of your backyards from the threat of terror. I will agree that I question why we are in Iraq and what/if the plan is. But I do know I feel safer knowing that Bush is willing to take action to defend our country, a feeling I would definitely NOT have with a democratic president.
