OK now, Time for the GOP Convention

[yoyodyne]

Why is it that you Dems/Libs feel like you need to shove your views down the throats of those who disagree with you.

Why do I insist on trying to change people's viewpoints? Because I sincerely believe that most people in the US, if they just spent 20 minutes reading the facts about the last 3.5 years of Bush and the damage that he has inflicted on everyone except the extremely rich and large corporations, would actually change their minds.

And here's the thing that I feel justifies my efforts: I voted for Bush I and Bush II. Yep, I was a registered Republican all of my life up until about 2 years ago. Once I started to see the corruption, the insider deals, the lack of respect for basic human rights, and the assault on the Bill of Rights, I knew I couldn't be a part of it anymore. It was a friend of mine that got me thinking and researching, and I believe that there are a lot of people that just don't realize what this administration is doing.

You try to make those voting for Bush sound dumb.

If your only reason for voting for Bush is that you've always voted Republican, then you deserve to feel dumb. If your only reason for voting for Bush is because the only research you've done on the man that is in control of the US and indirectly an awful lot of the world is through radio talk shows and political ads, then you deserve to feel dumb.

Voting is a responsibility, something that very directly affects your life and the lives of 7 billion other people. I'm just trying to get people to get over their old stereotypes of how political parties used to be, and get them to focus on what's going on now. If you believe that Republicans are the fiscally responsible party, you are misguided, and I think people just need to know the facts. If I may use an unfair stereotype back at you: Why is it that you Republicans/rightwingers insist on only listening to what you already think is right? Are you that afraid of having to admit you might be wrong?

"nobody could have handled 911 as well as Bush"

I invite examples of situations that Bush handled extraordinarily well regarding 9/11. Situations that, say, anyone with a high school education couldn't have handled just as well. Donning a fire helmet, grabbing a bull horn and praising the firefighters is something anyone could do. Sitting in a classroom, frozen for 7 minutes while the country is under attack is something anyone could do.

And BTW, the defense of the president "not wanting to panic the children" is really lame, ok? If planes are hitting buildings and someone needs to be giving orders to fighters to shoot down more planes, the welfare of school children should probably come second to the potential of saving thousands more lives by getting out and giving orders. He's the commander in chief of the military that is supposed to be protecting the country, right?

he is the most competant for defending the US

Why, because he tied our troops up in a war that didn't need to be fought? Because he didn't finish the fight in Afghanistan? Because now there are many more terrorists in the Middle East than there were 3 years ago?

Look at it from the standpoint of someone who lives in the Middle East. The US invades Afghanistan. No matter how you feel about the US, you can maybe let it slide because the US was attacked first and we were looking for Osama. Now the US invades Iraq. For no good reason. Let's say you are in the Middle East, young, poor, and are looking for someone to direct your anger to. What better place than the world power that just invaded your neighbor for no real reason other than trumped up intelligence?

How is this competent leadership? Again, I'm looking for examples. I submit that if the US had NO leadership whatsoever, and invaded nobody, we'd be better off. We wouldn't have not captured Osama, we wouldn't have captured a dangerous dictator with no weapons of mass destruction, we wouldn't have given the nice folks in the Middle East about a billion more reasons to hate our guts, and we would still have our military in one piece to defend us against REAL enemies, not made-up boogie men that need to be "wacked" so that our "mob" can make more "blood money."

Was Saddam a bad guy? Yep. Was it worth $4600 to me to get rid of him? Not a chance. Do I feel safer now that he's gone? Not one teeny tiny bit.

under Bush the economy is already improving after some of the most devestating events in our country's history

Interesting theory. If you added the phrases "turned the corner" and "the American people are safer", you'd have all of the Republican talking points in one message.

I'd like some examples please. Let me give you some of my own.

There are 900,000 fewer jobs in the US at this point in time than there were when Bush took office.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...JjJU&refer=home

This is worse than it seems, because generally you need to create about 150,000 jobs per month to stay even with the expanding number of people that need jobs. So we're in a HUGE hole for jobs, IMHO mainly because Bush's policies favor corporations that like to outsource jobs to overseas.

Even worse, the 144,000 jobs that were created last month were still a net loss when you factor in the need for 150,000 jobs per month just to keep up with new demand. Bush says we're turning the corner; to me, it looks like he crashed the car a few miles back.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../08/07/JOBS.TMP

Which all makes for a nice sound bite of "Bush is certain to be the first president since the great Depression to have a net loss of jobs." That sounds bad to me, and doesn't really sound like we're really improving, does it? I'm not sure that I want to gamble with the "well, I really botched it the first 4 years, but give me another chance, I promise I'll work harder this time" defense.

And I won't accept the "we're in a recession" or "we're in a war" defense for the jobs issue. In the last 75 years, there have been a lot worse recessions and a lot worse wars/military actions than this, and the job situation STILL wasn't this bad. A recent example: Dubya's dad enherited a recession and a huge deficit from Reagan and was still able to make jobs, so I'm not buying any arguments along those lines.

It's the game that the Republicans like to play. You hear "we added 1.7 million jobs in the last year." What they failed to mention is the millions of jobs that were lost in the two years before that, and oh, by the way, the 5.4 million jobs that needed to be created in the last three years just to keep up with the number of new people looking for jobs.

And yes, 9/11 was bad. But we didn't have to get involved in Iraq. And if it was that important to go to Iraq, we probably should have paid for it right away, and those who would benefit most from the Iraq war (multinational corporations) should pay the biggest burden. But according to our president, somehow it's GOOD for the economy to allow the large multinationals to have PO boxes in Grand Cayman and Bermuda so that they can get the benefits of the US war machine without having to actually pay any US taxes.

http://www.theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.d...INESS/106190067

9/11 is just a smoke screen to keep you from finding out how the government is really spending your money. Most of it wasn't spent on making you safer, most of it was spent on making rich people even richer.

http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0402.htm

The tax cuts amount to about $750 Billion dollars so far, about half of which went to the wealthiest 1%. I would submit to you that the benefits of the Iraq war would most benefit those individuals who would be the most likely candidates for officers in multinational corporations. Since a lot of their corporations aren't funding the war in Iraq because of the aforementioned tax dodges, maybe those tax cuts should have been rolled back and they should have paid for the war out of their pockets instead.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf

One final point. Bush's plan was to cut taxes to stimulate the economy to create jobs to grow the economy. I won't even factor in the initial loss of jobs in the first two year, I'll give him a free pass on those. No matter how you look at it, if it costs roughly $450,000 per job to create new jobs, you're doing it wrong.

[yoyodyne]

eureka,

I agree completely with your world-shift and checks-and-balances idea. Europe may be the check in the system at the moment (kinda), but eventually it will probably be China that will be the other superpower, assuming that the US is still a superpower by the time China becomes one.

I would also submit the idea that on a smaller scale, the Republicans in the US Government are in a similar situation, what with controlling the executive and legislative branches of government, and also have no check to keep them in line. This is a good time to be a rich Republican, and a bad time to be anyone else.

[April]

"Is there any hope of making a difference, of swaying opinions, or does it really have to get way, way worse before it gets better? Why doesn't anyone listen? And why is it so easy for those in other countries, like my friendly neighbors to the north to see how messed up things are, and yet there are 50 million people who are ready to vote Bush in again for another 4 years? "

Yeah been there done that...what I realized is they are hopeless...ya have to quit wasting your time with people who bury their head in the sand....

instead focus my friend on the ones who are open minded...they will listen and search out the truth...and if that happens enough times...we will see ol George ride off into the sunset....

[I miss Reagan]

Well yoyodyne I don't know where to start. Perhaps after I finish my critical analysis of War and Peace I'll get to your post. Anyhow the jist of it seems to be what arguments you will not accept. That being said it seems to me that I'm not the one with the problem of being closed minded. And part of your problem is that you assume that just because you voted for Bush 41 and Bush 43 while being uninformed, that all republicans are uninformed. Personally I try to get a hold of all the information I can from all sides. My conclusion is that libs tend to base their positions on emotion rather than logic. You should tune into Hannity .

we will see ol George ride off into the sunset....

Ya I was hoping the same thing for Clinton but the guy never stops with the attention seeking. Always trying to steal the spotlight.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Why doesn't anyone listen?

Has it ever occurred to you that people listen but do not agree with your point of view?

Well, that's certainly not the experience I have when I discuss politics with many right-wingers.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Well yoyodyne I don't know where to start. Perhaps after I finish my critical analysis of War and Peace I'll get to your post. ...

So you didn't even read it, but you've got a whole paragraph or more to say about it. How thoughtful and worthwhile will that be, I wonder?