Bush is all about making rich people rich....

[Tab]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
Man, as I kinda glance over at the threads, why are people still saying this? It's his agenda from the get go, to make money for oil tycoons, and other rich bastards that wants to rape this and other countries, in which and any ways they can. The real question is how to get his ass out of the White House. Really, ask yourselves, what has he done for this country since he took office? In order to be recognized, (or as a diversion), people have something else to talk about, hence the chaos ensued his election. I'm not really a conspiracy theorist, but I'd be damn if I don't believe in one (and you all know what it is).

I'd like to see some solid evidence of this. Otherwise, stop being another bush basher.

The question isn't "what did a politician do for you" - it should be - what did YOU do for your country

Ah, but who said that famous qoute?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
Man, as I kinda glance over at the threads, why are people still saying this? It's his agenda from the get go, to make money for oil tycoons, and other rich bastards that wants to rape this and other countries, in which and any ways they can. The real question is how to get his ass out of the White House. Really, ask yourselves, what has he done for this country since he took office? In order to be recognized, (or as a diversion), people have something else to talk about, hence the chaos ensued his election. I'm not really a conspiracy theorist, but I'd be damn if I don't believe in one (and you all know what it is).

I'd like to see some solid evidence of this. Otherwise, stop being another bush basher.

The question isn't "what did a politician do for you" - it should be - what did YOU do for your country

Ah, but who said that famous qoute?

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: dirtboy
PSA: cr4zymofo is poor.

Yes, very.... But the bastards I'm talking about are the billionaires of Oil, Contracting and other industries that benefited from this rape that's going on. So Mr. Billionaire dirtboy, what did Bush do for you?

obviously made him filthy rich, hence the nickname.

Yea, cause my nickname has everything to do with the amount of wealth I have.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: dirtboy
PSA: cr4zymofo is poor.

Yes, very.... But the bastards I'm talking about are the billionaires of Oil, Contracting and other industries that benefited from this rape that's going on. So Mr. Billionaire dirtboy, what did Bush do for you?

Nothing, but then again I don't need politicians to do things for me.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: prontospyder

Originally posted by: dirtboy
PSA: cr4zymofo is poor.

I doubt poor people can afford a brand new $30K Honda Accord.

Owning a new Honda Accord means your rich? Does Dave & Co know that this is the new measure of wealth in America??

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

I honestly don't see how you can support such an irresponsible president, let alone reelect him.

Welcome to my world seven years past.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: XZeroII


1. Cooporation with the UN would mean that we would have just sat on our hands and Saddam would still be in power. Why did the UN oppose the war? Because France had economic interests in Iraq (just one reason). The UN is powerless and they demonstrated it perfectly. They set up penalties for Iraq and when Iraq didn't do what they were supposed to, the UN just sat by. What a great message to send.

That's a nice assumption you dreamed up. Also, what were you assuming would happen if Saddam did stay in power a little longer? Would he launch his nuclear weapons we took away from him at us?

Rhetoric aside, the UN is not powerless. I don't remember them getting in the way in the first Iraq War.

Besides, what could France have done about a new resolution in regards to the recent Iraq conflict? I remember them stating they would not use their veto, so why do you put so much blame on France? It's obvious many countries were opposed to the possible war, for reasons you really don't know- but you'd probably just claim it was all in their 'economic interest'. It's funny how that works- you're so cynical about other countries- everything they do is in their -self-interest' while America is just going around doing everythign for other people, just to help them out, right?

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: XZeroII


1. Cooporation with the UN would mean that we would have just sat on our hands and Saddam would still be in power. Why did the UN oppose the war? Because France had economic interests in Iraq (just one reason). The UN is powerless and they demonstrated it perfectly. They set up penalties for Iraq and when Iraq didn't do what they were supposed to, the UN just sat by. What a great message to send.

That's a nice assumption you dreamed up. Also, what were you assuming would happen if Saddam did stay in power a little longer? Would he launch his nuclear weapons we took away from him at us?

Rhetoric aside, the UN is not powerless. I don't remember them getting in the way in the first Iraq War.

Besides, what could France have done about a new resolution in regards to the recent Iraq conflict? I remember them stating they would not use their veto, so why do you put so much blame on France? It's obvious many countries were opposed to the possible war, for reasons you really don't know- but you'd probably just claim it was all in their 'economic interest'. It's funny how that works- you're so cynical about other countries- everything they do is in their -self-interest' while America is just going around doing everythign for other people, just to help them out, right?

Really? I thought I remembered France threatening to use their veto which scared some countries from coming out to support the resolution. But then after the resolution was shot down, they denied they would have ever vetoed it

 

[prontospyder]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: prontospyder

Originally posted by: dirtboy
PSA: cr4zymofo is poor.

I doubt poor people can afford a brand new $30K Honda Accord.

Owning a new Honda Accord means your rich? Does Dave & Co know that this is the new measure of wealth in America??

I didn't say he is rich.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: prontospyder

Originally posted by: dirtboy
PSA: cr4zymofo is poor.

I doubt poor people can afford a brand new $30K Honda Accord.

Owning a new Honda Accord means your rich? Does Dave & Co know that this is the new measure of wealth in America??

according to kerry it is

 

[maddogchen]

So if I lie and pretend to be rich, will Bush make me rich?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: XZeroII


1. Cooporation with the UN would mean that we would have just sat on our hands and Saddam would still be in power. Why did the UN oppose the war? Because France had economic interests in Iraq (just one reason). The UN is powerless and they demonstrated it perfectly. They set up penalties for Iraq and when Iraq didn't do what they were supposed to, the UN just sat by. What a great message to send.

That's a nice assumption you dreamed up. Also, what were you assuming would happen if Saddam did stay in power a little longer? Would he launch his nuclear weapons we took away from him at us?

Rhetoric aside, the UN is not powerless. I don't remember them getting in the way in the first Iraq War.

Besides, what could France have done about a new resolution in regards to the recent Iraq conflict? I remember them stating they would not use their veto, so why do you put so much blame on France? It's obvious many countries were opposed to the possible war, for reasons you really don't know- but you'd probably just claim it was all in their 'economic interest'. It's funny how that works- you're so cynical about other countries- everything they do is in their -self-interest' while America is just going around doing everythign for other people, just to help them out, right?

Really? I thought I remembered France threatening to use their veto which scared some countries from coming out to support the resolution. But then after the resolution was shot down, they denied they would have ever vetoed it

More supposition (scaring countries part). Threatening to use a veto != using a veto.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: XZeroII


1. Cooporation with the UN would mean that we would have just sat on our hands and Saddam would still be in power. Why did the UN oppose the war? Because France had economic interests in Iraq (just one reason). The UN is powerless and they demonstrated it perfectly. They set up penalties for Iraq and when Iraq didn't do what they were supposed to, the UN just sat by. What a great message to send.

That's a nice assumption you dreamed up. Also, what were you assuming would happen if Saddam did stay in power a little longer? Would he launch his nuclear weapons we took away from him at us?

Rhetoric aside, the UN is not powerless. I don't remember them getting in the way in the first Iraq War.

Besides, what could France have done about a new resolution in regards to the recent Iraq conflict? I remember them stating they would not use their veto, so why do you put so much blame on France? It's obvious many countries were opposed to the possible war, for reasons you really don't know- but you'd probably just claim it was all in their 'economic interest'. It's funny how that works- you're so cynical about other countries- everything they do is in their -self-interest' while America is just going around doing everythign for other people, just to help them out, right?

Really? I thought I remembered France threatening to use their veto which scared some countries from coming out to support the resolution. But then after the resolution was shot down, they denied they would have ever vetoed it

More supposition (scaring countries part). Threatening to use a veto != using a veto.

Yes its != using a veto. BUT it is also != stating they would not use their veto which is what you said

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: XZeroII


1. Cooporation with the UN would mean that we would have just sat on our hands and Saddam would still be in power. Why did the UN oppose the war? Because France had economic interests in Iraq (just one reason). The UN is powerless and they demonstrated it perfectly. They set up penalties for Iraq and when Iraq didn't do what they were supposed to, the UN just sat by. What a great message to send.

That's a nice assumption you dreamed up. Also, what were you assuming would happen if Saddam did stay in power a little longer? Would he launch his nuclear weapons we took away from him at us?

Rhetoric aside, the UN is not powerless. I don't remember them getting in the way in the first Iraq War.

Besides, what could France have done about a new resolution in regards to the recent Iraq conflict? I remember them stating they would not use their veto, so why do you put so much blame on France? It's obvious many countries were opposed to the possible war, for reasons you really don't know- but you'd probably just claim it was all in their 'economic interest'. It's funny how that works- you're so cynical about other countries- everything they do is in their -self-interest' while America is just going around doing everythign for other people, just to help them out, right?

Really? I thought I remembered France threatening to use their veto which scared some countries from coming out to support the resolution. But then after the resolution was shot down, they denied they would have ever vetoed it

More supposition (scaring countries part). Threatening to use a veto != using a veto.

Yes its != using a veto. BUT it is also != stating they would not use their veto which is what you said

Well, you got me there. I should have said "..remember them stating they would not have used their veto" change tense.

 

[sillymofo]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo Man, as I kinda glance over at the threads, why are people still saying this? It's his agenda from the get go, to make money for oil tycoons, and other rich bastards that wants to rape this and other countries, in which and any ways they can. The real question is how to get his ass out of the White House. Really, ask yourselves, what has he done for this country since he took office? In order to be recognized, (or as a diversion), people have something else to talk about, hence the chaos ensued his election. I'm not really a conspiracy theorist, but I'd be damn if I don't believe in one (and you all know what it is).

I'd like to see some solid evidence of this. Otherwise, stop being another bush basher.

The question isn't "what did a politician do for you" - it should be - what did YOU do for your country

Ah, but who said that famous qoute?

You want evidence? Take a look around, and open your eyes, and your minds while you're at it. Shiet, a monkey could do a better job than that bumbling baffoon.

As for what have I done for my country, look at posts above. And yes, I have paid my due.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: cr4zymofo Man, as I kinda glance over at the threads, why are people still saying this? It's his agenda from the get go, to make money for oil tycoons, and other rich bastards that wants to rape this and other countries, in which and any ways they can. The real question is how to get his ass out of the White House. Really, ask yourselves, what has he done for this country since he took office? In order to be recognized, (or as a diversion), people have something else to talk about, hence the chaos ensued his election. I'm not really a conspiracy theorist, but I'd be damn if I don't believe in one (and you all know what it is).

I'd like to see some solid evidence of this. Otherwise, stop being another bush basher.

The question isn't "what did a politician do for you" - it should be - what did YOU do for your country

Ah, but who said that famous qoute?

You want evidence? Take a look around, and open your eyes, and your minds while you're at it. Shiet, a monkey could do a better job than that bumbling baffoon.

As for what have I done for my country, look at posts above. And yes, I have paid my due.

Are you a politics major? Do you know for a fact that a monkey could do better than Bush? I would bet not. It's more like you are just slinging mud.

 

[alchemize]

It has been proven time and again that a monkey throwing darts at a board covered with stocks does as well as the average mutual fund manager So quit berating monkeys!

 

[0roo0roo]

Perfectly Legal

 

[Jhhnn]

Bush's economic policies are merely an extension of the Reagan/GHWB economic policies- cutting taxes at the top will allow for trickle down effects, theoretically, anyway. The problem, of course, is that it doesn't really work that way, only massive debt acquisition by the govt has provided the illusion of effectiveness...

Real purchasing power of the average worker has remained stagnant since 1973, while the share of income and wealth has shifted radically towards the very top percentiles. So has the % of taxes paid, but not in proportion to the increase in incomes.

The whole operation is a form of looting- borrowing to allow huge tax "cuts" for the wealthiest americans, buying complicity from average voters with a few scraps from the feast...

While they're planning the collapse of the middle class, the dollar, and the financial power of the govt, the chumps are crowing over their pissant tax "cuts"- they're not "cuts" at all, just minor payouts in the greatest ponzi scheme ever perpetrated...

 

[Romans828]

Under BusH I actually recieved several tax rebate checks back from the IRS

To think the goverment actually returned some of MY MONEY to ME

My tax rates have been lowered under Bush.

Do you Bush haters even pay taxes?

Do you Bush/Rich people haters REALLY THING our country would somehow be better off if you "stuck it to the wealthy"

Hey tax cuts may not trickle down, but Sh*t does. You destory Americas "rich" and might corporate structure and you wish to God you hadnt. America's greedy upperclass have afforded the rest of us a standard of living the rest of the world can only dream of.

Thank God for hard working, driven capitalists who made this country great.

 

[Tab]

In my opinion the rich should be the first to get tax breaks. Why? Because the top 1% of the most wealthy (350k and above) pay 34% of all of our taxes.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

what we need to do is get rid of welfare, or sizeable cut it down. Put that money into job training. Welfare is acceptable in certain cases, pregnant mothers comes to mind, but it's being exploited the poor and lazy these days. We need to get these people off the streets and in the workforce of America.

 

[heartsurgeon]

you should wake up every morning and thank God for "rich" people..
they pay the overwhelming majority of taxes that provide you with all the goverment services you take for granted.
without "rich" people, the Democrat Party wouldn't have anyone to take income away from and redistribute to you!
God Bless "rich people", we need more of them, not less..

 

[ElFenix]

Bush's economic policies are merely an extension of the Reagan/GHWB economic policies- cutting taxes at the top will allow for trickle down effects, theoretically, anyway.

ghwb didn't believe in the "voodoo economics." hell, he was the one that coined the term. try to get it right.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Romans828
Under BusH I actually recieved several tax rebate checks back from the IRS

To think the goverment actually returned some of MY MONEY to ME

My tax rates have been lowered under Bush.

Do you Bush haters even pay taxes?

Do you Bush/Rich people haters REALLY THING our country would somehow be better off if you "stuck it to the wealthy"

Hey tax cuts may not trickle down, but Sh*t does. You destory Americas "rich" and might corporate structure and you wish to God you hadnt. America's greedy upperclass have afforded the rest of us a standard of living the rest of the world can only dream of.

Thank God for hard working, driven capitalists who made this country great.

just remember the capitalists did it all by themselves right? t hey grew the money on trees.

or did they have the help of the highly educated workforce, educated with tax dollars, using infrastructure, research institutions paid for by tax dollars. their fortunes kept safe by government workers, policemen, firemen, soldiers all paid for by tax dollars. society creates the conditions which make wealth possible.