I need YOUR help

I just found your site and I am SOOO glad that I did.
I am a member of a local car club and I am active on its website. Most of the members are pretty far right. There is a thread I am getting ready to reply to and I need YOUR help. I want my response to be precise, filled with mostly facts, and difinitave. I need help.
Please don't respond directly to it; here is the thread: http://www.ufba.org/forum/index.php?topic=7656.0
It is the guy who calls himself BBB who I need to agrue with the most. He doesn't even start until about the end of page 2. He is a poly-si drop-out and thinks he is the smartest man it the world.

I want to have a perfect response, so I need A LOT of ideas. I will run it past you folks before I submit the final version. Thanks in advance,
John Cameron

All who think as you do are needed. You will find what you need here.

Here is my response to him. Feel free to use this as much as you want.

On edit: Welcome to DU! I ask for help here sometimes and I'm glad to offer help to others in return. Ask anytime. Enjoy your time here!

That was an interesting perspective in the letter to the newspaper you sent
us. I always enjoy looking at modern issues in historical context, as I
think examining history is critical to understanding what is happening in
the world today. I'll take this all in chronological order as best I can...

Allow me to say that Bush is not the worst President in history. I think
that Herbert Hoover, Warren Harding, and possibly even John Adams (whose
authoritarian streak almost erased many gains of the Revolution) were worse
than Bush. However, I do believe that he has made many mistakes, to say the
least.

The author of the letter says that if liberals say that Bush* started the
war on terror, we must also believe that FDR started WWII etc. I don't know
what lens he's looking through, but I'd say that argument is pretty
convoluted and ignorant of history. Everyone knows that Japan attacked Pearl
Harbor. However, the United States did not declare war on Germany
immediately. In fact, Germany declared war on the United States before we
declared war on them. Yes, I know it's hard to believe, but those are the
facts. I was very surprised to learn that myself several years ago. In fact,
there is a debate among historians as to weather Hitler's declaration of war
on the US was a bigger mistake than his invasion of the USSR. The author of
the letter says that if we use the same "Bush started the war on terror"
logic with FDR, then Roosevelt unfairly attacked Germany. That is not the
case, as Germany declared war on us first.

Truman did not start the war in Korea. We all know how that happened.

On to Vietnam. Clearly the US decided to get involved there by ourselves. We
didn't really have to support South Vietnam, but we decided to in light of
the Cold War struggle against communism. Now, if you believe Vietnam was a
worthy cause, then there's no reason to criticize Kennedy. If you think
Vietnam was a waste, then we should learn from past experience and not make
those mistakes again. I personally am not sure which side of that debate to
support, so I'll stay out of it.

"Clinton attacked Bosnia without UN or French support". Yeah, he did. Let's
look at that in context. The actions in Bosnia were supported by NATO, an
organization as valid and noble as the UN. The NATO alliance is comprised of
the US and our most powerful European allies. If NATO decides to take
action, then by definition all member states give their support to that
action, including France. Therefore, the United States had much more
significant international support in Bosnia than we do today in Iraq. The
same goes for Kosovo. Even the Russians sent troops to Kosovo, and the
peacekeepers there are currently lead by the Dutch and Germans. This gives
the local population the impression that they are not occupied by the US,
but rather protected by their European neighbors. That is a distinction
which cannot be underestimated.

Furthermore, the action in Bosnia took place only a few months after the
Rwandan genocide took the lives of nearly a million people while the world
stood by and did nothing. The world community was not about to let that
happen again in Bosnia, especially not in Europe's back yard.

Now on to the war on terrorism. I think that there is a distinct ideological
impasse between those who support the war in Iraq and those who don't. At
the outset of the war on terrorism, I really wanted to go get those
terrorists. Now I'm not so sure. I think that those who support the war
honestly think this is some kind of winnable conflict. I don't think we can
win. We will never be able to eliminate the terrorists without stirring up
even more anti-US sentiment. I hope you realize that the action we have
taken in Iraq play right into Osama's game plan. We are doing exactly what
he wants us to do. We have taken out an extremist regime in Afghanistan,
thereby further angering the extremists, and we have also angered moderates
by toppling Saddam's secular regime (say what you will about Saddam, he was
not an Islamic extremist). When Osama and his vile cohorts were sitting
around planning the attack on NY and the Pentagon, their primary goal was
not to kill Americans. Their main goal was to provoke us into taking actions
which would provide support to their claims that the US was an anti-Muslim
imperialist bogeyman, advancing their own mission of sparking a real "Muslim
world vs. Christian and Jew" Jihad. We know that this is not a Christian
crusade against Islam, but when people like Gen. Boykin make comments about
how "my God is bigger than your God" and Falwell goes on TV and calls
Mohammed a "terrorist", how are people in the Muslim world supposed to react
to that? How angry would some of you get if a powerful Muslim spiritual
leader and, say, the Egyptian military commander went on TV and mocked
Christianity and called Jesus a communist? I think most of you would be
pretty angry.

The point I'm trying to make is that we can't destroy the terrorists with
this war. We only make them look like the saviors of Islam to more and more
people in that region. If we worked harder to secure our own borders,
airports, seaports, and other targets for terrorist attacks we would be way
safer than we are now. If we made it look like we were ignoring Osama, I
think that would go a long way to making him far less relevant in his part
of the world. Right now he looks like a strongman for standing up to the
"big bad USA". On the more technical side of things, our efforts in Iraq
have diverted crucial funds and resources from protecting the US itself.
According to FEMA, there are 3000 chemical plants in the US at which an
accident could impact at least one million people. And that's just an
accident, not a terrorist attack. These targets are privately owned and not
protected by the police or national guard. What have we done to protect such
targets? Nothing. The same goes for nuclear power plants. The Border Patrol
is practically non-existant. The author of that letter points out that the
US has not been attacked in two years, and seems to attribute that to Bush
having made our country safer. I think we haven't been attacked because the
terrorists have already achieved their goal of getting us to provoke a great
portion of the Muslim world, and spend billions and billions of dollars
trying to achieve unattainable goals.

The author of the letter compares the invasion of Iraq to the Branch
Dividian standoff. Please, Mr. Author, don't insult our intelligence. The
standoff at Waco could have been resolved in a matter of hours with as many
National Guard troops as the Governor cared to call out. The government
didn't make a move because they hoped to get Koresh to release the women and
children inside, or even to convince everyone to surrender peaceably. In the
end, the fire there killed many women and children and angered lots of
people (Tim McVeigh). So, were we supposed to just crush them immediately or
play nice with them? You can't please everybody. Back to the Iraq anology,
nobody said that defeating Saddam's military would be the hard part.
Everyone agreed that "winning the peace" would prove the greater challenge.

The author of the letter also acts like we're still going to find WMD in
Iraq. That isn't going to happen. The cheif weapons hunter, David Kay, said
that there aren't any WMD in Iraq and that "we were all wrong".

Nuclear inspections in Iran, Libya and North Korea. Libya had been moving to
reconcile with the world community for the better part of a decade. His
motivation probably had as much to do with making an oil deal with Mr. Oil
President as it did with saving his own ass. It's not like we were on the
verge of invading him anyway. The inspections in Iran will probably be
dismissed by the Bush administration as a failure (like the ones in Iraq
were). North Korea is another story entirely. Lots of people claim that our
invasion of Iraq has intimidated dictators into complying with our wishes.
Dennis Miller, who is now something of the right wing's funny-man and
satirist, said that NK only "came to the table" with us because of Iraq.
Yeah, they came to the table allright, but not to discuss disarmament. No,
they came to the table to rant and rave and finally prove to a skeptical US
government that they really did have nukes. The inspectors were invited into
their country not to oversee disarmament, but to report to the world that NK
was fully capable of delivering at least six nuclear warheads almost
anywhere in the Pacific rim, including the west coast of the US from Seattle
to LA. This is the flip side of US preemptive policy. We may intimidate some
people, but we also show that if the US is a-knockin' at your door, you'd
better have some big guns to fight back with.

That brings me to my conclusion. Part of the reason I looked forward to
studying in Canada was to get a feel for how others view my country. I hope
to serve my country someday either as a politician, a civil servant, or both
(or perhaps even in the military, although I haven't totally decided on
that), and I wanted to know how others feel about us. I've met many
Canadians, and plenty of people from all over Asia, Europe, Africa and the
Middle East. Most of them say the same thing. They all want to know why the
US feels like it has to be such a bully all the time. I think a lot of
Americans feel like we are threatening and intimidating the rest of the
world with our displays of power. I felt that way too back during the action
in Afghanistan. I'm as guilty as anyone else. However, I've learned that we
don't look tough to the rest of the world, we look like idiots. People don't
see strength, they see desperation, fear and panic. They don't have respect
for what we have done, nor do they have fear of us. There is only
bewliderment and growing anger. If the US wants to be a strong loner on the
world stage, then we're well on our way. Just remember, a rogue nation is
only a rogue nation because everyone else disagrees with it. If everyone
turns against the US, then we are the rogue; powerful, but nonetheless a
rogue. I do not say this because I hate America, or becaue I'm one of the
"blame America first" types. I say this because it hurts me to see my
country inflicting such damage on itself. As George McGovern said, "The
highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy, but a love
of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher standard".

I'm there for ya.

:pals:

If you get the time, the guy I am concerned with posts as BBB and has A LOT to say. He starts posting later. Lets get him good.

You can search through the archives here to refute all his lies. And what on earth did he pull this little factoid out of: "We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year"... uh no, idiot, that's an average a 600 a year.

Sorry, but I don't have the energy to respond to crap like that. They won't listen anyway... they've already given you their spin, and that's all they know.

More power to you for being in there though... keep up the fight.

a simple indication of utter stupidity, eh?

I'd add something, but there's nothing to add to rockmountaindem's excellent rebuttal.

:hi:

This is way old, it was an astroturf letter that many
papers printed. (As for a rebuttal, the DU advanced search
function is broken right now, so I can't find a DU link.)

Here's a rebuttal for you from another Dem site.

http://www.demsonline.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=49

Its reassuring to see someone have the balls (or ovaries as the case may be)to stand up and make a statement when it is obvious that the consensus of the community in question is diametrically in opposition.

Good for you.

As to perfect responses, there's no such thing. Some individuals (left and right) are steadfast on principle, and no amount of logic or reason will alter their position. I've found that when in a "hostile" environment, the best tactic is to start softly...have them think of you as one of them. Agree with, or at least acknowledge any points made that have some degree of merit. The point is not to bury them in facts and figures, they will respond defensively and not be receptive to anything you have to say, no matter how well reasoned or supported.

Get them to think. Raise "hypothetical" questions. Things like "hey, y'know I read where Cheney....., what do you guys make of that?"

anyway, not to imply my way is the best way, but its worked for me. I've helped turned a couple of die-hard repubs around.

welcome to DU, take what you need and leave the rest.

ON EDIT: my comments in no way should be construed as a slam on RockyMountainDem's posted response. Thats a fucking nice piece of work.

covers both :D

My wife got this in an email about a week ago. I have a very thorough response on my computer at home (I'm at work now.) If you would like I will either e-mail you the same later or will post it here later.

Here are the basics

1) FDR did lead us in (not into) WWII. Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini started WWII. Germany declared war against the U.S. on December 8 - PRIOR to the U.S. declaring war on Germany. Shortly after that Germany began the deadly U-Boat campaign off the Eastern Coast of the U.S. BEFORE any U.S. soldier had fired a shot against Germans. WWII had the overwhelming support of the U.S. Congress and the nation.

2) Korea - where do these nuts learn history? North Korea invaded South Korea without warning on June 25, 1950. U.S. planes flying support cover for SK airbases were attacked on June 28. U.S. troops were not committed until June 30 TO ENFORCE THE UN DEMAND.

3) Vietnam - again, these people were asleep in history class. JFK "started the Vietnam conflict in 1962"??? U.S. advisors began training South Vietnamese troops in 1956 (Eisenhower administration)Major Dale R. Buis and Master Sargeant Chester M. Ovnand became the first Americans to die in the Vietnam War when guerillas struck at Bienhoa in 1959. Kennedy did continue aid and advisors to Vietnam (continuing Ike's policies)until his death in 1963. Gulf of Tonkin incident - August 2, 1964 (again, JFK dead) The U.S. Senate voted 82-2 to approve the GOT resolution. NO GOP SENATOR VOTED AGAINST THE GOT RESOLUTION.The first American combat troops, the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, arrived in Vietnam to defend the US airfield at Danang in 1965.

Johnson, no doubt prosecuted the war - BUT - RFK was assasinated in June of 1968, and he would have most likely been the Dem. nominee and would have ended the war.

Nixon was elected and began a secret and ILLEGAL bombing campaign in Cambodia.

1970 - Kent State - Nixon

1972 - In an attempt to force North Vietnam to make concessions in the ongoing peace talks, the Nixon administration orders heavy bombing of supply dumps and petroleum storage sites in and around Hanoi and Haiphong. The administration makes it clear to the North Vietnamese that no section of Vietnam is off-limits to bombing raids.

The last American troops left in 1973.

- The votes in Florida were not counted. The Supreme court put a stop to the completion of their counting.

- Iraq is liberated? Then why do we continue to occupy it and why do the Iraqis not have self-determination?

- Germany did not attack us first, but they declared war on us.

- Actually, the "war on terror" was started by Bush. (Why would terrorists start a war against terror?)

- It's also unclear if the writer is condemning or praising Clinton. Does he condemn Clinton for going to war without UN consent? (In which case, the same condemnation would apply to Bush), or is a freeper actually praising Clinton for going to war without UN sanction? (We did, by the way, have the full support of NATO and Europe and Russia).

---------

You can formulate a reactive reply to this post, but you'd be responding to a diversionary argument. You might try making an assertive argument. You can find lots of info online. Other DUers can point you to good web sites, but these are a good start if you want to focus on the contemptuous lies of Bush:

http://www.bushlies.net/

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

All the posts above are just great and dead on. I can't understand where these nut cases on the right learn their history.

Just a few more facts to savor for your friends:

Number of U.S. Soldiers lost during the Kosovo campaign - 0

Number of terrorist convictions under Clinton for 1993
WTC bombing - 4

More people died in the U.S. in 2001 from malnutrition than from terrorism.

Number of U.S. soldiers killed since George W. Bush declared an end to "major combat" on May 1, 2003: 620

How many terrorist convictions have there been under the Bush administration?

This is how we make a difference.

Goddamn you people are good.

This guy posts as BBB and I want the fight to be centered against him...

Post 1

OK to start we need to have an accurate timeline and understanding of certain events. Read up and check in. I want to make sure we are all on the same page here.

Late 1940s: Great Britian forms Iraq from its land holdings. There was no "Iraq" before. There were no historical ties or common traditions. Multiple dissimilar religious and ethnic groups were thrown together.

Early 1970s: * Saddam Hussein comes to significant power (this was a subtle multi-year process
that we are going to lump together for ease of reference) through the creation
of the Baath party, murder etc.
* Formation of OPEC (Oil Producing/Exporting Countries) and their rise to power/control of oil
production and pricing. Their control led to the disasterous U.S. recession and economic
turmoil of the 70s, and it led to a change in U.S. policy toward the middle east

Late 1970s: * Overthrow of the Shaw of Iran (strong U.S. ally) by a radical religious group of
Sh'ite Muslims led by Ayatolla Komeni.
* U.S. Embassy overrun and the Americans taken hostage and held.
* New Iran is perceived as both a threat and an opportunity to Saddam Hussein. The threat
is that 2/3 of the Iraqi population is Sh'ite Muslim and considers the Ayatolla their spiritual
leader, and if the Ayatolla said so Saddam would most likely be deposed/killed. The
opportunity is that due to political turmoil in Iran he might be able to make a land grab.
* War starts between Iraq and Iran

Early 1980s: * U.S. weapons are sold to Iran to broker the release of the U.S. hostages (This later
becomes known as the Iran/Contra Scandal)
* The Soviet Union starts to back Iran militarily in its war against Iraq.
* In response to the USSR backing of Iran, the U.S. sells weapons and weapon technology
to Saddam. This is the time where he starts to acquire WMD capabilities.

Mid to Late 1980s
* Saddam starts to use WMDs(like Sarin gas) in missle attacks on Iran.
* US scales back its weapon sales to Saddam.
* The Iran/Iraq war ends in basically a stalemate.
* Saddam looks to replenish money reserves, and expand his power. His army is now
considered the 4th largest in the world.
* Saddam attack Kurdish villages in northern Iraq with nerve gas.

1990 August Iraq invades Kuwait (the occupation of Kuwait would provide a convinient deep
water port for the transfer/transport of crude oil to international shipping
Aug-Dec US sends military to Saudi Arabia in Operation Desert Shield

1991 Jan Commencment of Desert Storm. US liberates Kuwait and wipes out Iraq military.

mid 1991 Saddam is left in power in a cease fire agreement. His airforce is left intact. With the airforce
he exacts retribution on peoples in the North of Iraq by bombing/ straffing villages.

Early 1990s * A UN food for oil program was started in which oil could be sold internationally for food and
humanitarian items (ie medical supplys). Due to massive corruption in the program (the UN
Secretary General has been accused of recieving over 2 BILLION in kickbacks) Saddam just
got richer by pocketing money for his elaborate palaces, and hundreds of thousands died
every year from starvation.
1992 * In response to Saddam's bombing of Iraq's civilians and his continued hostile posturing
toward Saudi Arabia the Northern and Southern 'No Fly Zones' are created by the UN. The
US is put in charge of patrolling the zones forcing the US to remain in the Saudi bases.
* William Jefferson Clinton elected to the office of president with significantly less than 50%
of the vote (remember Ross Perot?)

1993 * Van Bomb is exploded in the garage of the World Trade Center. The critical issue here is
that this attack is the first significant terrorist act by foreigneers on US soil. It shows the
organizational skills of a budding group of terrorists later known as Al Quaida.

Mid 1990s * US still has to occupy bases in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia (Medina and Mecca are
Muslim holy cities and are located in Saudi)in order to patrol the no fly zones. Billions are
spent yearly in this costly operation.
* Saddam's military regularly targets US airplanes and fires missles at them. This is against the
cease fire agreement and against UN resolutions (the UN does nothing).
* Taliban takes over Afganistan in a multi-year civil war. Afganistan becomes a haven/training
ground for Al Quiada.

Late 1990s * No fly zone hassles continue.
* Osama Bin Ladin is now identified as a major player in international terror. His influence is
spread by his massive wealth and construction projects that benefit poor Muslim
populations. His rallying cry? Get the infidels out of our Holy Land! In a land of 40%
unemployment (Saudi Arabia) bored, going nowhere middle class kids ralley to his call.
* UN weapons inspectors are kicked out of Iraq.
* Al Quaida bombs 2 US embassys in africa.
* Sudan offers Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia, and the US. Caught in the middle of a blowjob, a
distracted Bill Clinton gets confused and declines the Sudan's offer.
* In different attacks in different years, in different countries, the US bombs Iraq, Sudan,
and Afganistan with Tomohawk cruise missles. Inneffective at killing the terrorists or Saddam
the bombings inflame anti-american sentiment in the muslim world.

2000 * George W. Bush is elected President of the US.

2001 Sept 11 WTC destroyed in barbaric attack thousands die
Airplane rammed into the pentagon people die
Airplane taken over by terrorists in Pennsylvania, passengers attempt to re-take the
plane. The plane crashes without hitting its terror target, all passengers die.

Oct. President Bush spells out the anti-terror policies saying that if your harbor or aid terrorists
you are a terrorist and we will come for you, he also states that it will be a long hard
conflict in which many people will lose the vision.

Late 2001-
Current
* Afganistan is invaded to oust the Taliban.
* Iraq is invaded in Febuary of 2003 and the regular Iraqi military is quickly overcome.
* Saddam's two sons killed in a firefight
* Saddam captured hiding in a hole

Early 90s-
2003
* France benefits from ultra cheap oil contracts with Iraq. Billions of barrels are bought for pennies on the dollar.
* France sells banned technology to Iraq, including tunneling equipment and military platforms
* Germany sells banned tech/services to Iraq
* Russia sells modern banned high tech military equipment to Iraq and transports them there
on "humanitarian aid" flights
* China installs moderns comunications systems for the Iraqi military (Chinese embassy gets
bombed)
* US ally Jordan sells weapons and munitions to Iraq only days before war starts.
* Saddam systematically eliminates ANY person capable of politically leading Iraq, even close
family members die.
* Saddam and Sons continues to be open for business, they offer services in rape, torture, murder, kidnapping, and genocide. Tens of thousands are political prisoners, thousands dissappear only to later re-appear in mass graves (that are opend only after US invades).


Ok, that is the timeline. Now we can debate the widsom of the politics of the decisions of various US administrations.

BBB

Post 2

Damn, even I forgot about the USS Cole. What was the date on that? I will go back and edit my time line. I think it was Oct 2000?

BBB

Post 3

Thanks on the Cole.

The other 2 attacks are prime examples of terrorism, but they are from groups that are either gone, or we haven't dealt with yet.

One outgrowth of our war with Iraq is that Mohamar Quadaffi (the leader of Lybia) has decided to play ball with the international community. He does not what some of the whoopass pie we are cooking up, so he allowed inspectors into the country to inspect and dismantle his nuclear programs.

BBB

Post 4

Ok, here are a couple of groundrules that I am going to try to lay on myself so that I can be civil and not just call names.
1. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that you are un-patriotic.
2. If you didn't vote in the last presidential election then your opinion about the president means little to nothing. (Sorry, even if you weren't old enough to vote.)
3. Everyone has an opinion, you are perfectly right in having and expressing it, but OPINION does not equal FACT.
4. Facts disprove theories and opinions.
5. Just because you disagree with me does not make you and idiot, stupid, ugly, smell bad, short, have bad breath, drag your knuckles, have sex with pigs etc. Even if I say so.


Khaos: You and others are concerned about the draft... #1 Even though they are talking about the draft you don't need to worry about it. #2 I believe everyone should serve their country. A draft would not be a bad thing for getting the younger generations into service to help them understand that freedom is not free.

Smokeumifyougotum : quote " lets see....fake news, degradation of personal freedoms, "not the world's police"/lets invade
a sovereign nation b/c they might have wmd's, passing the buck on 911, gigantic deficit,
and all around dummy...yep he's the pres for me! sure the troops are great,
but they were great 4 years ago as well."

The news is owned by left leaning groups/individuals, if there is fake news or conspiracy to mislead it is to make the current administration look bad. (A perfect example is the economy. Major new organizations don't report the gains the economy has made. The last quarters of 2003 were the most productive IN HISTORY, yet they want you to believe we have a failing economy.)
Degredation of personal freedoms has me bothered also, the "Patriot ACT" needs to be terminated.

Like it or not we are the world's police. We have been asked to fill that role by the international community (at their convenience) since 1915. Why? We sit on a moral high ground. We proclaim loudly to the world that all men are created equal, and while we are not perfect in maintaining that claim at home or abroad WE TRY. We are richer, healthier, and use more of the world's resources per person that anywhere else on the planet. Because we have alot we have a moral duty to take that and try to help others. As Americans we have a sense of fair play, and when we see the odds swing too far in favor of the bad guy we step in (usually only after being forced to or being asked to.)

WMDs were not the only reason we invaded Iraq. The primary reason was to depose Saddam so that we could leave Saudi bases, so that we could relieve that tense situation. The US being in Saudi to patrol the No Fly Zones was the 'reason' Al Quaida used to do 9-11. We were in their holy ground. You know how much trouble the street preachers stir up down town around LDS conference time. Now imagine that same feeling of disrespect 24-7. That is how some Muslims feel about the US presence in Saudi.

Passing the buck on 9-11... hindsight is 20/20. You have the benefit of that, intel doesn't. I ask you WHAT WOULD YOU DO DIFFERENT FROM THIS POINT FORWARD? HOW WOULD YOU CHANGE POLICY?

Defecit Spending: started with Franklin D. Roosevelt. It expands radically with every democratic congress. You can not blame President Bush for a deficit any more than you can credit Clinton for reducing the deficit when the congress makes and executes all the financial policy. Why did we have a reduction in the deficit in the late 1990s? We had a Republican congress for the first time in 50 years!!!

...all around dummy: Degree from Yale, Masters of Business Admin. from harvard. President of several successful multi billion dollar companies (single handedly turned around the fortunes of the Houston Astros). I say that if you are calling him a dummy then unless you have at least a PHd from an Ivy league school then you are an idiot. The "Bush is a dummy" idea is one that was started by the academic liberal left that thinks that brain power is theirs and theirs alone. They are horrified to find out that someone can graduate 'Ivy League' and believe that gay marriage is wrong. In fact they are horrified to hear someone use the absolutes or "right" and "wrong".

More later.

BBB

Post 5

1jfuddle: quote "Reganomics DO NOT WORK. They didn't with Regan and they sure as Hell
haven't with W."

"I voted for the lesser idiot of 2 terrible choices by voting for Gore, and I know enough about governmental economics to vote for Kerry.
He is actually a pretty good choice this time, rather than Bush who practices an economic system
where the average American got a $67 tax cut while someone who is already LOADED got a tax break
literally large enough to buy a Lexus. That my friend is Reganomics and it is terrible policy.
So...absolutly I will vote for John Kerry."


Once again you are on the wrong side of FACTS and HISTORY. First, tax cuts work. John F. Kennedy knew it so back in the 60s he stimulated the economy by cutting taxes. Regan knew that the quickest way to get us out of the recession of the late 70s/early 80s was a tax cut. George W. Bush did the same in 2003 and it already has changed the economy. The 3rd and 4th quarters of 2003 were the most productive in history, and jobs are being created again.Will that continue? I don't know if it can in the face of rising fuel costs.

Tax cuts that give a larger percentage cut to the wealthy over the middle class/poor has come to be known as "Trickle down Economics" or as you refer to it "Reganomics". And while everyone but the rich hate them they work. Why? Lets use the figures stated before $67 versus say $100,000 for a Lexus. If a middle class person gets $67 what do they do with it? They go to a movie, buy clothes etc. This is small item spending. More on that later. If a poor/middle class person gets $100,000 what do they do? They buy one time items like a car, or recreational vehicle, or take a vacation. These are large one time items. If a rich person gets the same $100,000 dollars what do they do with it? They use it to create more wealth! How do they do that? They invest it. Either in the stock market or in business ventures (anyone ever heard of venture capitalists?) it gets inverted into the economy in a way that creates jobs and wealth for many people. A prime example of this behavior was the multi-millionaire that won the HUGE lottery last year (about $300 million?). When asked what he was going to do with the money he said that he was going to contribute to his church, and hire back the 20 or so people that he had just laid off a couple weeks before due to slow business. When have you ever heard of a poor person that wins the lottery express up front that they are going to create new jobs as a first venture?

I disagree strongly with personal income tax. I think it is wrong and doesn't work. All it does is create hassle. I believe you should tax business and consumed goods (I believe that there should be no tax on food, but there should be a tax on resaurants ie luxury taxes).
In our current tax system the top less than 10% (I believe the real number is 4% but I can't remember) pay 70% of the income taxes! There is nothing in the world that gives me the right to take money away from the rich. I am not entitled to the "fruit of the sweat of their brow." Therefore I think it criminal that they have to pay unpurportionately, while there are people who sit, do nothing, and collect tens of thousands of dollars because of race or pregnancy etc.

It has been shown that cutting down on that extreme percentage of tax on the wealthy allows that group of people to take that money and invert it back into the economy by creating new business or investing in established business. Therefore, if the rich person gets a percentage break and creats 20 new jobs, the tax revenue generated becomes more than before the break.

Poor people don't create jobs.
Middle class hold jobs.
The wealthy CREATE jobs and economic movement.

That is the premise of Trickle Down Economics, history has shown that it works. Phychology shows why!


BBB

Post 5

And againin response to 1jfuddle:

quote "Where in the constitution does it say that we must overthrow the government of another country???"

First: Taken in pure context the government of the United States has the responsibility of the "common defense" of its citizens. (We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.) Failure to protect us could be considered a treasonous act. If going to war is required to provide for the safety and common defense of all of us then it is "constitutional".

Second: We have the moral imperative to protect those that can not protect themsevles. We are not perfect at it, and we are inconsistent at best. But, we try and should continue to try to make the world a better place.


Quote "Yes, no other president had the balls to get 500 U.S. citizens killed in one year in Iraq.
And don't even bring up how many people were killed on 9/11. Osama Bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein are not the same person. They don't even like each other. And terrorism -- it's been around forever. It will never go away as long as the United States continues to force itself on other countries. There is a reason other countries hate us. Americans think they are better than everyone else. We aren't."

We lose people all the time in peace time training missions. We lost thousands in only a couple of hours on D-day, and tens of thousands over the last century when we came to the rescue of people calling for our help. The only people that attacked us were the Japanese. Measuring an operational success by counting the dead is short sited and does not take into account the people we have savedor the good we have done. Freedom is not free my friend. Blood gets spilled so that we can complain that they are doing it all wrong.

'Osama/Saddam are not the same person...'

True, but I showed the link between them in the first timeline. With Saddam in power we can't leave the middle east. With him gone we can eventually leave.


'Terrorism will continue/United States forcing itself on other countries....'

I defy you to list these "other" countries. We are not anywhere in the world where we are not suppose to be. Either the UN wants us there (like Kosovo), the country wants us there (ie South Korea), or we are required to be there to fullfill treaty obligations (NATO countries like Germany). When we send our boys in it is because we have been begged to go in.


"Americans think they are better than everyone else."

Absolutely we are. We are the only empire in the world that dosn't rape and pillage the conquered. We are the only ones that allow people to come here illegally and get medical help, an education, jobs etc. We put our lives on the line for peoples we don't know, and don't matter to us. We welcome the "huddled masses". We are hope. We are the light at the end of the tunnel. I have lived outside the US, and my family has traveled EVERY continent and I can tell you most poeple want to be Americans, and everyone respects us even if it is grudgingly.


That should just about cover every single point that everyone has brought up. Rebuttal

This BBB dude is obviously really hard-core, and while he says he doesn't want to insult people his tone is clearly condescending. Damn I hate people like that. One question you might want to ask him in referance to the topic of the Beirut bombings is "How many asses did St. Ronnie Reagan kick?" The answer is zero.

Another thing that annoys me are all the people who say "At least he's sticking to his priciples" and "well he prays for help, so that makes everything ok". Lots of people stick to their principles. Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler stuck to their principles. I'd also bring up all the people who have comitted horrible atrocities in the name of God, which clearly refutes their whole "prayer is the answer to all our problems" line.