Top 10 reasons to defeat Bush-A perspective

[richiebaseball]

I found this top 10 reasons to defeat Bush list and wondered what everyone thought about it.

1. Bush is destroying workers rights and outsourcing jobs instead of protecting the right to organize and creating new jobs rebuilding schools, bridges, roads and hospitals

2. Bush is privatizing Medicare, Social Security and public education with phony reforms instead of enacting health care for all, protecting retirement funds and full funding for public education through college.

3. Bush is bankrupting the Federal Government with giant tax cuts for the very rich and super-funds to the military instead of securing the budget for human needs by taxing the rich and spending on human needs.

4. Bush is rolling back civil rights gains instead of enforcing and expanding affirmative action to end racism in all areas of life.

5. Bush is curtailing women's rights and choice by undermining Roe v. Wade instead of upholding the right to choice and ending the gender wage gap.

6. Bush is abusing immigrant workers in low-wage jobs instead of providing a clear path to citizenship and equal rights.

7. Bush is exploiting and ruining the environment by protecting corporate polluters instead of conserving our natural resources for the public good.

8. Bush's war in Iraq is a disaster for our security and economy. He is pushing for more preemptive wars and for first strike nuclear military policy instead of negotiations and cooperation utilizing the UN.

9. Bush is denying civil liberties and free speech in the name of fighting terrorism instead of repealing the USA Patriot Act and helping cities, towns and states fund firefighters and police.

10. Bush discriminates against Gays and Lesbians with a Constitutional Amendment instead of expanding civil rights and liberties for all.

Now I know these sound like they're straight from the Democratic National Committee but this list is actually from the Communist Party USA. I wonder if the DNC is aware that the Communist Party is using their material? Or is the Communist Party using the DNC's material? Either way, it's curious.

http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/585/1/27/

Just one man's opinion.

Richard

 

[minniepumpernickel]

What exactly is "The Communist Party USA"?

I agree with atleast 5,7,8, and 10.

 

[wvrevy]

Hitler built good roads.
George Bush has spent money on the infrastructure to help build good roads.

Therefore, Bush and Hitler are one in the same.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
Now I know these sound like they're straight from the Democratic National Committee but this list is actually from the Communist Party USA. I wonder if the DNC is aware that the Communist Party is using their material? Or is the Communist Party using the DNC's material? Either way, it's curious.

Communists and liberals generally have a lot in common. They both want to expand and strengthen government but at the same time want to limit government control over people's personal lives. Until someone comes up with a clear idea on how to manage both things, I don't think we'll see either group controlling the country.

 

[cati]

This has already been on the board once.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Teejay32
Communists and liberals generally have a lot in common. They both want to expand and strengthen government but at the same time want to limit government control over people's personal lives. Until someone comes up with a clear idea on how to manage both things, I don't think we'll see either group controlling the country.

Yes, and neoconservative and facists have quite a bit in common as well, since they both believe in legislating morality and granting certain "class" citizens rights not enjoyed by all.

Unfortunately, the neoconservatives have done a good job of disguising their facsist tendancies, so they have managed to gain a foothold in the white house....a situation that will be rectified in a little over 4 months

(In case anyone misses my sarcasm on this post, I'm not equating conservatives and facsists...just demonstrating the ridiculous nature of this kind of comparison)

 

[Galahad]

and neoconservative

Could you define that term? Since it's getting a lot of play these days it would be good to all be refering to the same thing.

 

[wvrevy]

According to Wikipedia:

Neoconservatism refers to the political goals and ideology of the "new conservatives" in the United States, characterized by hawkish views on foreign policy and a lesser emphasis on social issues and minimal government than other strains of American conservatism.

That's the way I tend to use it, at least. (Emphasis on the "hawkish" part)

 

[ElizK]

Wow, most of this list impresses me as reasons to re-elect President Bush.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by wvrevy
According to Wikipedia:



That's the way I tend to use it, at least. (Emphasis on the "hawkish" part)

Thanks. Up until not long ago I recall the term simply meaning a conservative that used to be liberal....often at least silent on devisive social issues. The "hawkish" part seems to be pretty recent. Definitely a term defined by those who are not "neoconservative".

 

[Teejay32]

I don't know any fascists or neocons personally, so I can't define what the goal is there. I know Communists, Socialists, liberals, Democrats, and some combinations therein, and often they are idealogically sympathetic to each other. #3: Bush is bankrupting the Federal Government with giant tax cuts for the very rich and super-funds to the military instead of securing the budget for human needs by taxing the rich and spending on human needs. Textbook Communist. Frequently heard complaint from liberal Americans. Thus, they're in agreement here. How else would you put it?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Teejay32
I don't know any fascists or neocons personally, so I can't define what the goal is there. I know Communists, Socialists, liberals, Democrats, and some combinations therein, and often they are idealogically sympathetic to each other. #3: Bush is bankrupting the Federal Government with giant tax cuts for the very rich and super-funds to the military instead of securing the budget for human needs by taxing the rich and spending on human needs. Textbook Communist. Frequently heard complaint from liberal Americans. Thus, they're in agreement here. How else would you put it?

Oh, I don't actually disagree with you, Teejay. It's the constant need of some to associate the words "liberal" and "Communist" that I have a problem with. Yes, I do realize that there are some similarities. But as I pointed out, there are similarities between moderate conservatism and the far reaches of the right side of the political spectrum as well.

Just a pet peeve of mine....If you say two words in association often enough, people start to confuse them (you know, like 9-11 & Iraq or terrorism & Saddam )

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Hitler built good roads.
George Bush has spent money on the infrastructure to help build good roads.

Therefore, Bush and Hitler are one in the same.

Congratulations, you have just invoked Godwins Law.

Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows
longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once
this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis
has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=godwins+law

Nice to see you still know where that rolleyes smiley is. I would hate to see you stop using it. I might actually start taking you seriously then.

Just one man's opinion.

Richard

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by wvrevy
But as I pointed out, there are similarities between moderate conservatism and the far reaches of the right side of the political spectrum as well.

true...and there are big differences. There might be more total similarities between left-leaning moderates and right-leaning moderates, but that's just a guess.

It looks to me (I'm not an expert or anything) that more people than usual have gone way right and way left, and those are the people howling at each other all the time. Some of the blame lies with things like the Communist Party of America on the left and its counterparts on the right. They push their own agendas under the cover of "equality" or "family values" or whatever buzzword.

Just a pet peeve of mine....If you say two words in association often enough, people start to confuse them (you know, like 9-11 & Iraq or terrorism & Saddam )

Terrorism & Saddam are synonymous. That's an old argument though. I'm still right.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
Congratulations, you have just invoked Godwins Law.

Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows
longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once
this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis
has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=godwins+law

Nice to see you still know where that rolleyes smiley is. I would hate to see you stop using it. I might actually start taking you seriously then.

Just one man's opinion.

Richard

I'm just crushed...."Richiebaseball" doesn't take me seriously...whatever will I do now ?



1st, my post was sarcasm. Yours was serious. That says quite a bit about both posters, if you ask me :hyper

2nd, when your political arguments sound like they're coming from an adult rather than a repressed 12 year old, I'll start worrying about wether or not you take me seriously, 'kay ?

Cheers

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I'm just crushed...."Richiebaseball" doesn't take me seriously...whatever will I do now ?



1st, my post was sarcasm. Yours was serious. That says quite a bit about both posters, if you ask me :hyper

2nd, when your political arguments sound like they're coming from an adult rather than a repressed 12 year old, I'll start worrying about wether or not you take me seriously, 'kay ?

Cheers

Beautiful. You bring up the old Hitler response and then accuse me of being a repressed 12 year old? Well, I will continue to attack your political philosophies. You can certainly continue to call me names if you like. My skin is pretty thick.

Cheers

Richard

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
Beautiful. You bring up the old Hitler response and then accuse me of being a repressed 12 year old? Well, I will continue to attack your political philosophies. You can certainly continue to call me names if you like. My skin is pretty thick.

Cheers

Richard

IT WAS A JOKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!



I was using an extreme example to prove a point, not actually comparing the two. See, that's what the was there for. Maybe if you actually read the post instead of jumping to conclusions, you'd have seen that.....

Nah...why bother having an informed opinion ?

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
Beautiful. You bring up the old Hitler response and then accuse me of being a repressed 12 year old? Well, I will continue to attack your political philosophies. You can certainly continue to call me names if you like. My skin is pretty thick.

Cheers

Richard

Richie you are so sensitive. You compared liberalism to communism in your original quote, what are we supposed to think?

Did you know that communism, in it's original pure form wasn't meant to be bad? It's just the leaders that messed it up!

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by wvrevy
IT WAS A JOKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!



I was using an extreme example to prove a point, not actually comparing the two. See, that's what the was there for. Maybe if you actually read the post instead of jumping to conclusions, you'd have seen that.....

Nah...why bother having an informed opinion ?

Fair enough. I can certainly give you the benefit of the doubt. I do have an honest question however. When are we supposed to take you seriously and when are we not supposed to take you seriously when almost every post contains

Richard

 

[ThreeCircles]

Ahhh...

Yet again we see the meaningless attempt of w supporters to run from the administrations record. They have nothing to offer so they have to compare the Democratic party to communism, terrorists, something.

Rich isn't even offering his opinion as he so claims but rather does nothing but regurgitates the right-wing smear tactics of the republican machine.