Home > The Melting Pot > How many of you guys also hate Bush?

AuthorMessage
facia "And, where are all the Democrats who voted to to to Iran (and they had to vote yes for us to get involved)? They have turned tail and run the other direction, as they usually do when confronted with unpopular issues."

Um...that's one way of looking at it, I guess. And do you mean Iran or Iraq?

The way I saw it, though, Bush was involved in saying that Saddam absolutely had WMD. This was a lie, but people believed it at the time. So the legislative branch, Democrats and Republicans, did vote to go to war. But blaming them for being tricked into thinking something, rather than the person who lied in the first place, seems a bit mistaken.

When the war was a disaster and it turned out that people had lied about the WMD, I'd much rather my representatives said that they realized they'd made a huge mistake rather than doggedly stay the course even though they knew it was wrong. Criticizing the Democrats for changing their minds when new evidence appears is...well, is it really considered that great for people to stick to their first decision no matter what, even if it ends up disproved a dozen times over?

"I personally would like to see the entire system scrapped and a return to the way it was meant to be: term limits with no pay."

Um, that's a cool idea and all, but honest hard-working people often don't have enough money to do a job for free. The only people who could afford to be politicians would be those rich enough not to work...or those getting tons of bribes. Or both.

"Perhaps it would behoove a few to brush up on their government; learn how it actually works."

Um, no offense, but you keep talking about the House and Senate as if they're two of the three branches of government. So...
Posted at 2007-04-22 21:36:22
Rous Yes, I am sorry, I did mean Iraq.

However, we were all mistaken about the WMD, perhaps; only history will tell us that. And, I do not believe Bush lied to anyone; he was mistaken as well as the rest of us, if indeed Iraq does not have WMD. So, who was mistaken first? The other countries who swore the weapons were there?

As for pulling out of the war now, it is too late. If we do not finish it, then we just perpetrate the image that we are quitters. Look at the mess in Viet Nam. Or some of the countries in Eastern Europe. When you leave things half-finished, you leave a bigger mess that when you started.

And, basically, the only ones there now are rich. Very few are just middle-class.

And, I know that the houses are not separate; however, it still takes both of them to agree with the President to do something like this.

Posted at 2007-04-23 03:05:14
facia No...we were mistaken about the WMD. That part is official. I don't know if Bush was lying or if it was just some of his people, but we know it was fabricated by now. And if you get information that the CIA says is fabricated, that there is no evidence of, that goes against what the weapons inspectors say, and you go before Congress and say it's completely true, you're lying. Especially if you're on record back in 2000 saying you intend to invade Iraq, and if after 9/11 your memos saying "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit Saddam Hussein at same time. Not only Osama bin Laden." and stuff are also around showing you decided to invade first and looked for reasons second, then yeah, you were lying.

"The other countries who swore the weapons were there?"
The countries who thought it was bad he removed the inspectors and wanted them there in case he tried anything? Yes, they wanted the inspectors there. What we did is, we kicked the inspectors back out so we could invade. Maybe I'm misremembering but I seem to remember the other countries being upset we did that. And the UN said what we did was illegal. So I don't think blaming other countries is at all fair. (Except Iran.)

...and I really don't think there's any evidence staying in Vietnam would have accomplished anything but killing more Vietnamese. I can't honestly say that Iraq will certainly be better off if we withdraw now. But...every day we stay there, it gets worse. It might still keep getting worse if we left, but that's not a reason to stay and make it worse. (And at least the people we're torturing would get released) I'd rather we were seen as quitters than murderous thugs, and I'd rather we used the billions upon billions of dollars for something besides killing people.

"And, basically, the only ones there now are rich. Very few are just middle-class."
1) Not all politicians, just the most prominent. A lot of the lower level positions are filled by other people.
2) Yes, but your way removes the few who are middle class to make them all rich. How is that an improvement? Wouldn't it make more sense to prevent them from getting all the gifts rather than taking their salary?
Posted at 2007-04-23 17:01:33
PikaBot It would make more sense to me to just dial back the insane salaries that government officials earn.
Posted at 2007-04-23 20:09:24
facia And don't forget to remove that bit where they can vote themselves raises.
Posted at 2007-04-24 13:26:20
Rous Both of these are excellent suggestions. However, how many rich dudes do you think would actually want the office if it meant that they would not gain anything from it financially? We might get the ones in office who truly wanted to do some good. Give them a set salary, to pay for housing and things like that; another to cover their employees; but, they would all get the same thing, with nothing extra for serving longer. No retirement accounts, no pensions, no paid vacations. In other words, no getting rich, or richer, benefiting from the backs of those who do not have the opportunities offered now.
Posted at 2007-04-25 04:31:20
facia Um...actually...unfortunately, a lot. Being a politician can make you wealthy, but it's more likely that someone who's already wealthy will become a politician, and that they're attracted to the power, not salary.

There are a lot of politicians who are independently wealthy and who spend more money getting into office than they make. (I mean...Bush himself has enough money that the presidential salary could be nothing and he'd be fine.) Although all of them like getting money, a lot of the rich dump tons of money into lobbying and stuff to influence government. And those guys are usually the most scary. (And able to make up any salary docking by passing tax cuts or reducing environmental standards for the industry their company is in or something)
People become politicians to help others, or because it's easy and pays well, or as a power trip. You'd weed out the guys who don't really care so much, which is a good, but the really bad ones would still be there. (Although they'd at least have a bit less money to throw around)

Really what we need is to prevent them from getting "presents" from lobbyists and pass the Clean Elections bill so corporations and really rich guys can't donate money to get a guy elected. That wouldn't have too much effect on personal wealth, but it would better deal with the problems of money running politics, and you'd have fewer corporate jerks and more people who were trying to serve the general public. If you take away the guys influencing politics, the politicians who play to them would be gone too. But this will never happen.
Posted at 2007-04-25 20:10:52
Tian87 pikabot- what country do you live in?
you dont have to answer i just want to know.
Posted at 2007-10-10 18:18:00

Log in!




Register Lost password

Filter

You won't see stories with a lower score when you browse or search. Log in to adjust filter.
0

 

Greed

Featured Story

Site Stats

  • Authors: 72206
  • Stories: 23797

Recent Stories

Site design Copyright 2005, K&D Lynch. All stories contained in this archive are the property of their respective authors, and the owners of this site claim no responsibility for their contents.

Page created in 0.1029 seconds