I have to agree, I have supported Bush from the beginning, but alot of crap was said last night during the state of the union advertisement, I mean speech that I don't support.Come on... Even if you are right wing, you have to see that something is at least a little fucked up. But party loyalty is a major issue.. sorry to say.
Just out of curiosity, why is party loyalty important?FlexThis wrote: Not saying I'm switching parties, because party loyalty is important, .
Granted, I know what you mean. He's really a bandwagon mother fucker. Will this get me their votes? Lets go this way! Wait, these people don't like it? Ok, I'll compromise to get their votes. In the end, it's not going to matter, because I'm going to screw everyone! That's what I see in him.FlexThis wrote:I have to agree, I have supported Bush from the beginning, but alot of crap was said last night during the state of the union advertisement, I mean speech that I don't support.Come on... Even if you are right wing, you have to see that something is at least a little fucked up. But party loyalty is a major issue.. sorry to say.
Not saying I'm switching parties, because party loyalty is important, just not all that sure about where Bush is intending to go next.
I agree that the poor hold on to money. I also agree that the middle class seems not to notice (until uncle sam takes half their paycheck). But I disagree about the rich. I think people have an ill conceived notion of the rich based on disasters like Enron, Martha Stewart, and Bill Gates. The rich simply play the game differently and take full advantage of the law. They pay top dollar to have professionals guide them into smart financial decisions. They do not hold on to money as the poor do because it costs them too much to do so. Their money is always in the economy providing jobs, building foundations, and improving the economy through market stimulation. You are right however, that when the market takes a dive the rich do not suffer. The reason is that even in down times they have educated themselves enough (or paid the right people) to guide them through and continue to make money. They turn a negative into a positive.The poor hold on to what money, rather than invest it in the stock market or what not. They need their security. Middle class doesn't notice anything, they go on as they are, maybe slight modifications to their life style. The rich have enough money, so they can boost the stock market and not worry if they bust in it. It's not really helping the economy.
You got me there. Without a doubt, turning the negitive into a positive is a good thing, but relating it to the economy with respect to the jobs, that doesn't make me see the economy as recovering fully. It's like you get screwed up in a car accident, and you have your broken bones mended, but you still have internal bleeding.But I disagree about the rich. I think people have an ill conceived notion of the rich based on disasters like Enron, Martha Stewart, and Bill Gates. The rich simply play the game differently and take full advantage of the law. They pay top dollar to have professionals guide them into smart financial decisions. They do not hold on to money as the poor do because it costs them too much to do so. Their money is always in the economy providing jobs, building foundations, and improving the economy through market stimulation. You are right however, that when the market takes a dive the rich do not suffer. The reason is that even in down times they have educated themselves enough (or paid the right people) to guide them through and continue to make money. They turn a negative into a positive.
You don't sound like a poster child for the rich. You sound like someone who can back up what they believe in, and that goes beyond party politics to being intellegent. Because of that, I have deep, genuine respect for you. It's also good to point out that every group has their criminals. Rich has enron, more or less martha stewart, Cheny (sp?), and Bush in my opinion. The poor have all the stereotypical thugs and stuff. The middle class is more along drug dealers and company embezzlers, provided that makes sense. The media gives a bad wrap to the rich only because we've been trained not to care about anything lower. Thus, it sets a bad example for the rich.I know I sound like the poster child for the rich, I just think they have taken a bad wrap based on a few bad apples. The same can be said for the poor that turn criminal to survive. The rich have their criminals as well, and it just might be George Bush. We'll know for sure as history unfolds
Heheh, except, if memory serves, the last election. Should Bush even be in office? is a legit question. It's also not the first time popular vote did not put the "right" person in office....Rob wrote:True. But it's EXTREMELY rare that whoever casts electoral votes (havn't eaten yet and tired so I can't remember) would go against the popular vote.
Uh, no. no. no. no. no. no. they MAKE the god damned laws conform to whatever makes them money.FlexThis wrote: The rich simply play the game differently and take full advantage of the law. .
You've already got my vote (as meaningless as that is)Tsiangkun wrote:Uh, no. no. no. no. no. no. they MAKE the god damned laws conform to whatever makes them money.FlexThis wrote: The rich simply play the game differently and take full advantage of the law. .
When I run for president I am going to win by being the most pissed off candidate ever.
Debate, hell I'll kick the other guys ass on tv like it's a WWF smackdown.
And if the poor change the laws, the rich will find a way around that tooFlexThis wrote:
The rich simply play the game differently and take full advantage of the law. .
Uh, no. no. no. no. no. no. they MAKE the god damned laws conform to whatever makes them money.
.Tsiangkun wrote: --
When I run for president I am going to win by being the most pissed off candidate ever.
Debate, hell I'll kick the other guys ass on tv like it's a WWF smackdown.
So we can more or less shape this republic we have. If you don't vote, don't bitch, simple as that.Question: why vote at all? Popular vote means nothing against electoral vote, no?
Which is why they can take advantage of them so well. They understand every little thing about it.The rich simply play the game differently and take full advantage of the law. .
Uh, no. no. no. no. no. no. they MAKE the god damned laws conform to whatever makes them money.
True enough, but come election time for the college, there will be some new people in it, people who will reflect more of the people's will.if memory serves, the last election. Should Bush even be in office? is a legit question. It's also not the first time popular vote did not put the "right" person in office....
If you do that, you violate their right to privacy. That will get you impeached faster than Clinton's blowjob.I also plan to publish the home addresses of everyone who makes over one billion dollars a year.
Lets see them work around an angry crowd of poor people
No, the resolution he tried to pass through the UN was forced but blocked, he simply side-stepped the UN.he forced his way though the UN to get into Iraq.
I agree. To a certain degree, since votes in a presidential election are meaningless, many people are blind to the fact that in a way we are already enslaved. (no morpheus connections intentional)QuantumBalance wrote:If you are going to give up on voting, then just accept slavery now. YOU CANT GIVE UP ON VOTING. If you feel your vote doesnt count, then vote for propositions and people that you think will make it count.
If you give up, we are all lost.
Again, I agree. Accept when a vote is meaningless in a given election. To simply vote in order to have the right to complain is silly - that's not the reason for voting. We need to put strength back into the voting system itself. It's broken.MegaFighter_X wrote:So we can more or less shape this republic we have. If you don't vote, don't bitch, simple as that.Question: why vote at all? Popular vote means nothing against electoral vote, no?
