NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you think would be the better President, HONESTLY? Bush or Kerry, and why?


I say, GO BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would have to say Bush. I dont want somebody that is pro-communist, and wants to give our veterans less in office...not to mention any names *cough*Kerry*cough*

KERRY.

Stalin.



I mean, if your going to vote evil, vote evil! ;)

I generally dislike Democrats... greatly... but in this case I have to say kerry....

Bush is a horrible president. Under his administration, hundreds of billions have been wasted on military efforts that were unnecessary. He has no concept of what foreign relations means, and an overall moron. He didn't know the Prime Minister of America's largest trade partner was! (During the 2000 election campaign...)

So even though I dislike Kerry, I think the concept of the lesser of 2 evils applies....

Kerry. Why?

Bush has given me many reasons not to trust him, whereas Kerry has not given me as many. However, lesser of two evils applies here of course.

Kerry!!!!!

hehe im not exactly pro kerry but after the way bush has shown ineptitude for running this country, i say give kerry a chance to screw us up and kick ol' bush out

Kerry should be voted president. The economy of the United States is getting worse due to Bush's eagerness to go to war (and of course because of the dollar becoming a weaker currency on the international market, due to the strong euro, and we all know that the only reason that America wasn't bankrupt a long time ago is because of the value of the dollar as an international currency).. He is a president who uses his propagandamachines very well, but I doubt that the public know what's really going on under his rule. And, I must agree with the fact that the principle of "lesser of two evils" is what one has to relate to here!

there should have been a neither option

It's interesting to note that in 2000, a lot of people voted for Bush simply because 'he was more personable'. Now, the reasons why people would vote against him is that 'he's a horrible decision-maker' and the like.

Goes to show what happens when some decide to make the Presidential race a popularity contest.

By the way, I would vote for Kerry.

I would have to say Bush. I dont want somebody that is pro-communist, and wants to give our veterans less in office...not to mention any names *cough*Kerry*cough*

Oh my god. Pro-Communist? That has to be one of the lamest insults ever. Trust me, I use to be a commie myself and Kerry is definately not pro-communist. (I am currently anti-communist, if you were wondering). And less veterans in office? It was Bush who took away benefits to veterans! How do I specifically know this? My mom worked for the VA for years (ever since I can remember and I am 17) and she would rant about the cut benefits for Veterans at the VA. Bush is pro-vets? Hah! That has to be one of the lamest implications I have ever heard! Oh, and he cuts benefits for vets and starts a war? Sounds glorious to me.

Bednarik

Neither?

Bush has wasted hundreds of millions? Yes, I say when he let Ted Kennedy draft that education bill that he keeps refering to: No Child LEft Behind. Fact is, we're fighting a global war and *gasp* we have to spend a lot of money to be right 100% of the time to keep our country safe. Terrorists only need to be right one time... (yeah, a quote courtesy of Bush)

The left and all Bush-haters have been trying to brand Bush as an incompetant moron who got C's in college, but they then complain that he "rope-a-doped" them during the 9/11 commission. Bush is a moron? Look who's in his cabinet! All of them ran circles around the Dem's best efforts to blame 9/11 on Bush INSTEAD OF THE TERRORISTS!

On the economy: The recession is over in large part of Bush's tax cuts and higher confidence. Bush can't run this country? He brought us out of a recession from the dot-com bomb and the tragedy of Sept 11th. Go ahead and start whining about high gas prices and blame it on him... if congress would've passed his energy bill we wouldn't be dependent on OPEC... yeah drill about 8% of ANWR and we'd have about a million barrels a day more than now.

Now, I wasn't old enough to vote for Bush in 2000 but I do know a lot of people who voted for Bush because he was personable and has more character than say.... Gore. Anyone remember feeling glad that it was Bush in charge instead of Gore on Sept 12th 2001?!?! Many people across the nation were thanking God Bush was there. Character is a plus in Bush's case because when tragedy came and there was panic.... he was there and ready to do what he had to do to defend us. He didn't pussyfoot when the UN (led by France, Germany and Russia) tried slowing us down before going into Iraq. And what have we found out? The HUGE Food For Oil scandal that's connected to France and Germany, and what? Russian weapons in the hands of terrorists? Oh, and griping about WMDs won't work bc we found artillery shells full of serin gas (which is a WMD).

Kerry? Hah, don't get me started. That man has no core. He does what he thinks everone wants.... and lands on every side of the fence in the process. I know I'm quoting from the Bush Ad, but "in Kerry's bid to be all things to all voters he has engaged in a level of double-speaking that makes most voters wince". Yeah, Kerry's gonna win for sure... the best thing Kerry can do is shut up, let surrogates spread his message and hope Bush's numbers drop low enough to be elected.

Kerry in the oval office scares me because he would act as President for our national security until the UN cried about us being too strong. What do you mean we're the last superpower? We shouldn't police the world? *gasp* If we don't do it, no one will (especially the UN bc 2/3 of their members are DICTATORS!).

In the words of John Kerry(hehe), "Bring it on!"

†President Hallok of the Dominion of Hallocia

Wow. Another one of these threads. This makes, what--17,000 or so in the last couple of months?

http://www.bushwatch.com/liarliar.jpg

why bother with voting we should have a dictatorship.

reminds me of a CNN poll, more liberals than conservatives

reminds me of a CNN poll, more liberals than conservatives

As opposed to some polls that are extremely fair like Fox news? :lol:

reminds me of a CNN poll, more liberals than conservativesFunny, it reminds me more of the poll discussed here. (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=148788&highlight=) It's an equally statistically valid poll--that is to say, not at all--but it's on Sean Hannity's website, and Kerry still beat the hell out of Bush.

Wow. Another one of these threads. This makes, what--17,000 or so in the last couple of months?

Post of the day!

Wow. Another one of these threads. This makes, what--17,000 or so in the last couple of months?

Post of the day!thankyouthankyouthankyou. I'll be here all week. Try the chicken! Tip your waitresses and bartenders!

Kerry? Hah, don't get me started. That man has no core. He does what he thinks everone wants.... and lands on every side of the fence in the process. I know I'm quoting from the Bush Ad, but "in Kerry's bid to be all things to all voters he has engaged in a level of double-speaking that makes most voters wince". Yeah, Kerry's gonna win for sure... the best thing Kerry can do is shut up, let surrogates spread his message and hope Bush's numbers drop low enough to be elected.

Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with a politician doing what they are supposed to do? If he flip-flopped on an issue could it not have been because that is what his constituents decided was better. Instead of going after him for being on both sides of every issue, why don’t you note that there are years, even decades, between these occurrences? Much can change in even a year so imagine how much it can change in a decade.

Please note that I am choosing Kerry as the lesser of two evils. In saying that I do not know whether the above was the proper reasoning behind his decision switching, I am just offering a solution. I will not be able to vote, which is unfortunate as I would if given the chance.

Kerry? Hah, don't get me started. That man has no core. He does what he thinks everone wants.... and lands on every side of the fence in the process. I know I'm quoting from the Bush Ad, but "in Kerry's bid to be all things to all voters he has engaged in a level of double-speaking that makes most voters wince". Yeah, Kerry's gonna win for sure... the best thing Kerry can do is shut up, let surrogates spread his message and hope Bush's numbers drop low enough to be elected.

Just out of curiosity, what is wrong with a politician doing what they are supposed to do? If he flip-flopped on an issue could it not have been because that is what his constituents decided was better. Instead of going after him for being on both sides of every issue, why don’t you note that there are years, even decades, between these occurrences? Much can change in even a year so imagine how much it can change in a decade.

Please note that I am choosing Kerry as the lesser of two evils. In saying that I do not know whether the above was the proper reasoning behind his decision switching, I am just offering a solution. I will not be able to vote, which is unfortunate as I would if given the chance.

How many times does someone have to repeat the old "lesser of two evils" before they decide to do something about it?

Let's end the insanity. Change cannot happen unless votes are taken away from the Democrats and Republicans. I realize third party candidates have no chance of winning in 2004, but nothing will happen until there is enough momentum to kick the idiots out of the electoral process.

Craig A. Niederriter wrote the following (http://www.ohiocp.org/wastedvotequestion.php) "I have been asked; "When you vote for a third party doesn't' that waste a vote?"

How is NOT voting for a person I believe to be the best candidate good for America? Why is voting for an honest statesman over an idiot politician NOT good for America? Why is my vote wasted when I vote for the person that best represents my beliefs and values; dreams and goals?

When we give votes to a candidate we empower him to act. Candidates see Votes as a sign of our satisfaction with him. Votes show approval of programs and policies. Votes indicate agreement with their beliefs about government, economy, and freedom. Votes justify their actions. Votes confirm the effectiveness of their leadership. Votes feed into voters' mandates to continue with programs that don't work. Why should I send such messages to a person I don't back even 50% of the time?

Accepting the candidacies of only the Democrats & Republicans gives me very little democratic choice. How do I vote when the "choice" given me by the reigning two parties is really no choice? If the choice was between Homer Simpson and Al Bundy would it really matter who wins? I've been told it is a wasted vote if I vote for someone who has no chance of winning. I guess I must vote for a possible "winner" regardless of how far they fall from my expectations for a presidential candidate. Or, I'm supposed to vote for Mr. Green to block Col. Mustard from getting into office. Not that Green is the better person, but we really don't like Col. Mustard's political party. Voting shouldn't be about choosing the best idiot.

Who doesn't want to end poverty, illiteracy and crime? Who doesn't want to feel secure; have a sense of privacy and a few bucks left over bills and taxes to spend? The Democrats and Republicans have built a gigantic federal system to fix America's Problems. They made a one size fits all, secular, socialist, centralized government that is expensive to run and stands opposite to Americans' desire for individuality and personal responsibility. Is this form of government even compatible with Liberty? What success has the Democrats and Republicans had? NONE. Do we have more or less privacy, security, or liberty? Do we have greater disposable income, are our children better educated? Are our jails empty of criminals? They say Insanity is a person doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting different results. The same Democrats and Republicans keep getting electing and with the same result. INSANITY!

Let's make this simple: Manure has the same stink whether it's from an elephant or donkey. If you don't want stinky manure, why do you keep voting for it? Do you expect that this time it won't stink? INSANITY!"

No president in history, whos approval ratings are as low as Bush's are at the moment, has ever won re-election.

Kerry is going to be the next President.

and I say...."Good."

there should have been a neither option

I had one, but they didn't put it there

*Sings* "America needs you, Harry Truman. Harry could you please come home? Things are looking bad, I know you would be mad to see your favorite men prevail upon the land we love!

Everybody stand and sing!

America's calling, Harry Truman! Harry you know what to do. The world it turning 'round and losing lots of ground. Oh Harry is there something we can do to save the land we love!"

Thanks Chicago!

How is NOT voting for a person I believe to be the best candidate good for America? Why is voting for an honest statesman over an idiot politician NOT good for America? Why is my vote wasted when I vote for the person that best represents my beliefs and values; dreams and goals?
INSANITY!"

Well put my friend! I'd say something along those lines but I could hardly say it better...

Bush for President.

Hallocia, I really could not have said it any better...

Just out of curiousity, BackwoodsSquatches, can you back what you said up with actual statistics? Don't just post them, I'd like to see a link...

A third part will never win because two many people vote "just withen their party." More then half my entire school believes in that, and it drives me insane. If you want to get a third party to be taken seriously, he answer isn't to vote for them-it's to change the minds of people voting. Most people choose their vote based not on what different politicians stand for in reality, but what they say they stand for and how they look. The only way in these days you're going to get an actual third party up and running is to slowly bring it into the mainstream until it's as popular as the other two parties.

I myself am an independent :p

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,3600,349494,00.jpg

he he, love him or loathe him, no doubt hes a goober.

At least one person here already spewed the right-wing horseplop. Too bad. Yeah, Bush was there to do the right thing, by hopping onto his plane and hiding the whole day out, excommunicado. And by repatriating the Saud and Bin Laden family members during the NOTAM period where anyone else was forced down with military escort.
And the drilling in ANWR ... okay. That would only contribute to .8 - 1.3 percent of the usable oil in the whole market. Not affecting the prices much, whereas if the Sauds stopped their bragging and actually committed to upturning their production 13-15% as stated last week and some weeks before you might actually see some change in the price. Why not review the OPEC summit from just a little while ago to see how everyone there felt about it. And if you have the wherewithal, try bothering to read who exactly has what shares involved and what companies, by maybe typing up "Carlyle group" in a few search engines and links. There's of course more but a few people will see a pattern.

Spouting rightwing horseplop about some "noble" creature like Bush, "voted for" by the "populace" and how he does the right thing. Right, alright, WAY right and too liberal to even be called a conservative in almost any fashion (spending and amendments to constitution ring a bell?)
As for the "economic rebound" - only 15-18% of the income actually came to the labor force and populace up til 2003 whereas the corporate income was near 40.5%. Unprecendented in any "economic rebound" since WWII. How's Kenneth Lay doing these days, holding Bush's hand? "Burn, baby burn .." might've heard that on the radio TODAY.
AND this new virtual border idea is gonna cost the US PEOPLE up to $15 billion by 2014, and they're already thinking of the contract going to a Bermuda company! Outsource, anyone?
Oh yeah, if you're too lazy to work for the jobs we get you, we'll give them to immigrants, legal or not. Thank you for my vote.

I guess he's a likeable guy if you're like him.

But as a president he eats horseplop.

I heard at some point though that this election could hinge on good hair.

Vote for the bland! Vote Kerry

Just out of curiousity, BackwoodsSquatches, can you back what you said up with actual statistics? Don't just post them, I'd like to see a link...

I can... lets look at recent historical precedents..

Defeated, Ford 47% Carter 38% GWB 1 - 43%

Re-elected, Reagan, Clinton all had over 50%

*All numbers above were taken 6 months before an election*

If an incumbent is below 50% approval rating.. they don't get re-elected. If Bush stays under 50% approval he will not be re-elected. No President in modern history ever has. The furthest back I could find stats on the net was 1939..

neither are great or perfect if we were going personal likeness bush wins by a landside but we're talking politics and presidency here. Bush. He's more in support of free trade/free market, better on taxes,better on defense he doesn't change his stance every day on the issues. Communist kerry is also btw. God I hope bush wins really I think it will be a close one

I say we should let third parties run what no one worries about is the libertarians stealing bushes votes in favor of them from conservatives who convert if you will sort of like liberals voting nader.

neither are great or perfect if we were going personal likeness bush wins by a landside but we're talking politics and presidency here. Bush. He's more in support of free trade/free market, better on taxes,better on defense he doesn't change his stance every day on the issues. Communist kerry is also btw. God I hope bush wins really I think it will be a close one

I say we should let third parties run what no one worries about is the libertarians stealing bushes votes in favor of them from conservatives who convert if you will sort of like liberals voting nader.

I will be very sad for the whole entire world (not just Americans) if Bush is re-elected.. We live in interesting times.. people have never been so blinded while another group have their eyes so wide open all at once in the same time.

*Shakes her head*

Some people really seem to get it.. and other people seem to really not get it. *sigh*

reminds me of a CNN poll, more liberals than conservatives

Just like your last presidential election.

Just out of curiousity, BackwoodsSquatches, can you back what you said up with actual statistics? Don't just post them, I'd like to see a link...

I can... lets look at recent historical precedents..

Defeated, Ford 47% Carter 38% GWB 1 - 43%

Re-elected, Reagan, Clinton all had over 50%

*All numbers above were taken 6 months before an election*

If an incumbent is below 50% approval rating.. they don't get re-elected. If Bush stays under 50% approval he will not be re-elected. No President in modern history ever has. The furthest back I could find stats on the net was 1939..

And link?

After carefulling reading your thread, I've come to one conclusion...




....needs more nakedness....

















*streaks across thread, then jups out of conveniently placed window*

Just out of curiousity, BackwoodsSquatches, can you back what you said up with actual statistics? Don't just post them, I'd like to see a link...

I can... lets look at recent historical precedents..

Defeated, Ford 47% Carter 38% GWB 1 - 43%

Re-elected, Reagan, Clinton all had over 50%

*All numbers above were taken 6 months before an election*

If an incumbent is below 50% approval rating.. they don't get re-elected. If Bush stays under 50% approval he will not be re-elected. No President in modern history ever has. The furthest back I could find stats on the net was 1939..

And link?

I couldn't re-find the article I had read this in.. but I did a quick search (which any one with a computer can do themselves btw ;) ) And this at least backs up the premise of my assertion..

http://www.needlenose.com/pMachineFree2.2.1/weblog.php?id=P1044

I should also have added to my rant that Bush refuses to utilize the oil/gas reserve for sake of not pandering to "party politics" on the part of the Democrats.
Now we're importing gasoline as well as the other stuff.

I should also have added to my rant that Bush refuses to utilize the oil/gas reserve for sake of not pandering to "party politics" on the part of the Democrats.
Now we're importing gasoline as well as the other stuff.

Bush is over, deal with it... ;)

I personally remember that Clinton's approval ratings usual held within the 47%-50% range. Bush is still within that range. Clinton's lead over Dole was sufficiently higher than 50% throughout the campaign in 1996.

Recent polling since March has shown that if the election were held today Bush would win the electoral vote handily and slightly have the popular vote. I do not see that as a major slip in approval.

Where it counts, Bush still leads Kerry is specific issues, and has managed to tie in ones in which he trailed in the early part of the year. When it comes down to it, although mistakes were made (which, although I am a strong Bush supporter, I wish the administration would admit), most Americans would still like Bush as a leader.

As for the poll itself, the results were broadcast on Fox News. I do not know if it was a poll taken independently or by Fox themselves. Either way it is still valid.

As for the Hannity poll it appeared that Democrats did what they usually do: get all their friends together, vote repeatedly and try to embarass Republicans in any way possible. It is typical bad behavior like this on the Democrats' part that will go a long way towards winning Bush the election.

Just out of curiousity, BackwoodsSquatches, can you back what you said up with actual statistics? Don't just post them, I'd like to see a link...

I can... lets look at recent historical precedents..

Defeated, Ford 47% Carter 38% GWB 1 - 43%

Re-elected, Reagan, Clinton all had over 50%

*All numbers above were taken 6 months before an election*

If an incumbent is below 50% approval rating.. they don't get re-elected. If Bush stays under 50% approval he will not be re-elected. No President in modern history ever has. The furthest back I could find stats on the net was 1939..

And link?

I couldn't re-find the article I had read this in.. but I did a quick search (which any one with a computer can do themselves btw ;) ) And this at least backs up the premise of my assertion..

http://www.needlenose.com/pMachineFree2.2.1/weblog.php?id=P1044

now now...no need to get shirty.....:wink:

The person you replied to had asked for links...and you know as well as I do that one can find anything on the net.... and when it comes to politics this holds doubly true....therefore when posting stats its best to include the links...

well except for me of course :)

i say bush but it dosnt matter cause ican't vote

Most definitely Kerry. While I do agree that the two party system presents the American people a deplorable lack of options, Kerry has to be better than the current bungler we have in office.

As for Bush's "noble" character, why not take a look at some of his business ventures, where he had the government condemn property so he could build his baseball team a new stadium (and then proceed to sell said team for a hefty profit), or how he was in bed with Kenneth Lay and let Enron and other corrupt energy corporations draft the Administration's Energy policy? (See Cheney's task force on Energy for details). Hmm, how about the deplorable lack of investigation or prosecution in the power shortages on the West Coast some years ago, when Enron and other power companies falsely created a shortage so they could earn extra income? What about Halliburton getting a no bid contract earning them billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq, a country that we invaded for purely fictitious reasons? Yeah, Bush's character is above reproach. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

As for his skill as our leader, he's helped to increase Al Qaeda's numbers instead of decrease them, he has yet to capture our real enemy, Osama Bin Laden, and indeed was very solicitous of Bin Laden's family after 9/11, allowing several members of said family to flee the country when I'm sure the FBI would have loved to ask them some questions. The Patriot Act robbing us of many of our civil liberties, giving the government a veritable carte blanche in spying on its own citizens. The second one is even worse. As for the economy getting stronger, it is starting, finally to resurrect itself, but this isn't necessarily a part of Bush's tax cuts. Indeed, we've had these cuts for three years and it's just now starting to show an effect? Meanwhile, our federal deficit is growing in record numbers, the gap between the rich and the middle class is widening in truly record ways, oh yeah, and his tax cuts? Pretty much most went to the rich and the corporations, while what benefit the middle and lower classes got is inevitably outweighed by the drop in government services (like massive cuts in education) and the increase in state taxes to make up for the sudden cessation of federal funds.

So yeah, personally and politically, Bush has shown a deplorable lack of confidence or concern for his constituents. Let's just hope that the Supreme Court isn't in a position to rob the American people of their chosen president again.

Kerry's wuppin azz.

Mussolini...that other guy said to vote evil...Hitler is worse but that's going too far so Mussolini is it :D

I personally remember that Clinton's approval ratings usual held within the 47%-50% range. Bush is still within that range. Clinton's lead over Dole was sufficiently higher than 50% throughout the campaign in 1996.

Recent polling since March has shown that if the election were held today Bush would win the electoral vote handily and slightly have the popular vote. I do not see that as a major slip in approval.

Where it counts, Bush still leads Kerry is specific issues, and has managed to tie in ones in which he trailed in the early part of the year. When it comes down to it, although mistakes were made (which, although I am a strong Bush supporter, I wish the administration would admit), most Americans would still like Bush as a leader.

As for the poll itself, the results were broadcast on Fox News. I do not know if it was a poll taken independently or by Fox themselves. Either way it is still valid.

As for the Hannity poll it appeared that Democrats did what they usually do: get all their friends together, vote repeatedly and try to embarass Republicans in any way possible. It is typical bad behavior like this on the Democrats' part that will go a long way towards winning Bush the election.Actually, you have your numbers mixed up. Clinton's personal approval numbers may have hovered around 50%, but the important ones are the job approval numbers, and Clinton's never dipped below 55% in 1996. Bush has the reverse problem. His personal approval ratings are hovering around 50%, maybe just a little above that, but his job approval ratings are closer to 40% now. That spells trouble for the incumbent.

And I don't know what recent polling you've been seeing, but there's not been a poll in the last 2 months that has put Bush with any sort of lead, certainly not one outside the margin of error. And most electoral maps I've seen lately have Kerry well ahead--it's way too early for that because we're still months away from the election, mind you, but if you think Bush is currently in the stronger of the two positions, you're deluding yourself. Even Bush's supporters are saying he's in trouble right now and he'd better do something to turn it around.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Bednarik
ermmmm...Badnarik

and I agree

After carefulling reading your thread, I've come to one conclusion...




....needs more nakedness....

















*streaks across thread, then jups out of conveniently placed window*


sounds like fun, can i join..... Anyway Kerry's to liberal to be a President... Dean would have been better... but i say BUSH.

Mussolini...that other guy said to vote evil...Hitler is worse but that's going too far so Mussolini is it :D

Hitler was physco, but brilliant!!!!! Hitler was probally one of the best leaders of his time... he kind of had weird views on life... but he was brilliant. just... physchiaotically brilliant...... I'm not saying anything against jew's.... don't have a problem with them, thats not how i'm saying he's brilliant. Just his method of obtaing power and udilizing it.

why bother with voting we should have a dictatorship.

exactly..."the almighty and supreme Crazy Karate Guy" has a fabulous ring to it..

bush all the way...I'm from Mass. and kerry has done NOTHING for our state. he's a liar and i'll never trust him. I'd rather have Al Sharpton in office.

I personally remember that Clinton's approval ratings usual held within the 47%-50% range. Bush is still within that range. Clinton's lead over Dole was sufficiently higher than 50% throughout the campaign in 1996.

Recent polling since March has shown that if the election were held today Bush would win the electoral vote handily and slightly have the popular vote. I do not see that as a major slip in approval.

Where it counts, Bush still leads Kerry is specific issues, and has managed to tie in ones in which he trailed in the early part of the year. When it comes down to it, although mistakes were made (which, although I am a strong Bush supporter, I wish the administration would admit), most Americans would still like Bush as a leader.

As for the poll itself, the results were broadcast on Fox News. I do not know if it was a poll taken independently or by Fox themselves. Either way it is still valid.

As for the Hannity poll it appeared that Democrats did what they usually do: get all their friends together, vote repeatedly and try to embarass Republicans in any way possible. It is typical bad behavior like this on the Democrats' part that will go a long way towards winning Bush the election.Actually, you have your numbers mixed up. Clinton's personal approval numbers may have hovered around 50%, but the important ones are the job approval numbers, and Clinton's never dipped below 55% in 1996. Bush has the reverse problem. His personal approval ratings are hovering around 50%, maybe just a little above that, but his job approval ratings are closer to 40% now. That spells trouble for the incumbent.

And I don't know what recent polling you've been seeing, but there's not been a poll in the last 2 months that has put Bush with any sort of lead, certainly not one outside the margin of error. And most electoral maps I've seen lately have Kerry well ahead--it's way too early for that because we're still months away from the election, mind you, but if you think Bush is currently in the stronger of the two positions, you're deluding yourself. Even Bush's supporters are saying he's in trouble right now and he'd better do something to turn it around.

Not just that, think of all the people talking about why Kerry hasn't come out in front.. Ha! Check the historical precedents. Find me an un-known challenger in any modern run for the Presidency when he was in a dead heat for numbers this early in an election year. I dare some on to go find some thing.. The convention hasn't even started.. and he hasn't picked a V.P. which is only going to increase his numbers.. We already know who's running with Bush.. good old Cheney.. (I wonder if he'll still be standing by the end of this)..lol ;)

Not just that, think of all the people talking about why Kerry hasn't come out in front.. Ha! Check the historical precedents. Find me an un-known challenger in any modern run for the Presidency when he was in a dead heat for numbers this early in an election year. I dare some on to go find some thing.. The convention hasn't even started.. and he hasn't picked a V.P. which is only going to increase his numbers.. We already know who's running with Bush.. good old Cheney.. (I wonder if he'll still be standing by the end of this)..lol ;)
I was just thinking about the same thing. Kerry has yet to announce a running mate. I also believe that will add numbers for Kerry. The GOP ticket is already set. Personally speaking, I hope he picks John Edwards, who undoubtedly will help with the southern vote, has a fresh "clean" appeal, presented well in the primaries, and is better looking than ALL of the candidates (which is always helpful in politics).

At least Bush can make a choice and stick with it, regardless of how stupid or misleading the circumstances are, one day Kerry will speak out against gay Marraiges and the next day he will be in a gay bar supporting them in their right to get married.

Again--and it's way too early to look at poll numbers as a serious indication of anything right now--Bush's biggest problem is that his negatives are about equal with his positives, while Kerry's are lower. Bush's positive/negative split is even in the low to mid 40s. Kerry's is about 44% positive/32% negative in the last poll I saw, so he's got room to grow voters. Bush doesn't have as much room to grow support.

Add in that historically, undecided voters lean toward challengers the closer you get to election day and Bush has a serious problem. John Zogby, the pollster, said in a piece recently that this is Kerry's race to lose now. I'm not so sanguine yet, but I don't feel as nervous as I did when Kerry was running away with the nomination back in January.

even conservatives are very uneasy with the monumental mess Bush has created--Bush has made terrorism into a global scourge on a scale unseen in all of history

VOTE PAT BUCHANAN !!!!


HE CAN SAVE THE USA!!!!


I know what you're all thinking... He isn't running... It is called "Write in"...

Pick either Pat Buchanan or David Duke and do a write in.

At least Bush can make a choice and stick with it, regardless of how stupid or misleading the circumstances are, one day Kerry will speak out against gay Marraiges and the next day he will be in a gay bar supporting them in their right to get married.

Yes, Bush will make a choice and stick to it.. even if it's a wrong choice and finds out it was the wrong choice, no matter what every one says.. and admit to no mistakes or change the course he's on when proven ill.. Being stubborn is not always a good quality.

VOTE PAT BUCHANAN !!!!


HE CAN SAVE THE USA!!!!


I know what you're all thinking... He isn't running... It is called "Write in"...

Pick either Pat Buchanan or David Duke and do a write in.David Duke. Hah! I got to vote against his sorry ass the last time he ran for office in Louisiana. Happiest vote I ever cast. And it was a beautiful day when he went to jail for fraud as well.

I say anyone but Bush. And all the bush supporters should play the Anti-Bush Online Adventure Game. I used to think Bush was a decent president, but it changed my views of him completely. I'm not saying Kerry or Nader are the best people in the world, but they're better than Bush.

http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html

VOTE PAT BUCHANAN !!!!


HE CAN SAVE THE USA!!!!


I know what you're all thinking... He isn't running... It is called "Write in"...

Pick either Pat Buchanan or David Duke and do a write in.David Duke. Hah! I got to vote against his sorry ass the last time he ran for office in Louisiana. Happiest vote I ever cast. And it was a beautiful day when he went to jail for fraud as well.

David Duke didn't commit fraud... He got railroaded for his beliefs... If it had been a communist thrown in jail, you'd be up in arms...

Neither.

And all the bush supporters should play the Anti-Bush Online Adventure Game. I used to think Bush was a decent president, but it changed my views of him completely.

An online game? Who says the modern electorate is fickle, disloyal and easily swayed? :D

Bush. Knows what needs to be done and does it.

Kerry. Mr. Flip Flop King of the world. Walks a straight line like Senator Kennedy during a sobriety test.

Bush and Kerry are two sides of the same coin. But I see Bush, the crazy ass Texan defending our shores aggressively where Kerry would weaken us.

What was the Dot Com bomb?

VOTE PAT BUCHANAN !!!!


HE CAN SAVE THE USA!!!!


I know what you're all thinking... He isn't running... It is called "Write in"...

Pick either Pat Buchanan or David Duke and do a write in.David Duke. Hah! I got to vote against his sorry ass the last time he ran for office in Louisiana. Happiest vote I ever cast. And it was a beautiful day when he went to jail for fraud as well.

David Duke didn't commit fraud... He got railroaded for his beliefs... If it had been a communist thrown in jail, you'd be up in arms...Bullshit--he went to jail because he cheated people, plain and simple. And if a communist cheated people and went to jail, I'd feel exactly the same way. Duke was a crook and got what he deserved.

I am a republican i dont really like Bush that much but Kerry is a left wing liberal nut

Amen to the latter. How does one vote for spending money on a war that one opposes?

Actually we shouldnt even be having this debate considering Al Gore is technically the president. Thats whats wrong with America. Gore got more votes but Bush is in office, would someone please explain that to me.

i say Bush, i dont like either of them, and if there was an option to pick niether, i woulda picked it, these next four years in America probably arent gonna be great...

we don't get enough of these Bush/Kerry polls

Gore got more votes but Bush is in office, would someone please explain that to me.
http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html <--There.

Stalin.



I mean, if your going to vote evil, vote evil! ;)Kerry beats Stalin in a landslide in the evil primaries, then loses to Dr. Evil in the National Evil Election.

Maybe its the 'Echo Chamber' effect... but it always warms my heart that every time someone has a Bush v Kerry Poll in here, Kerry always wins by around 20%

Interesting how many liberals flood these boards and instead of speaking with intelligence and understanding , they spew negative garbage about conservatives, GOP, etc. Why not have an actual discussion instead of emotionally heated shouting match. Both SIDES....

VOTE PAT BUCHANAN !!!!


HE CAN SAVE THE USA!!!!


I know what you're all thinking... He isn't running... It is called "Write in"...

Pick either Pat Buchanan or David Duke and do a write in.

He will still get 2500 votes in Palm Beach County.

Actually we shouldnt even be having this debate considering Al Gore is technically the president. Thats whats wrong with America. Gore got more votes but Bush is in office, would someone please explain that to me.

Try reading the Constitution of the United States of America. It explains how our system of government works.

Actually we shouldnt even be having this debate considering Al Gore is technically the president. Thats whats wrong with America. Gore got more votes but Bush is in office, would someone please explain that to me.



You have a limited understanding of a governmental system that you are making statements about. Do some research about the electoral system.

I don't want any of them, but bush I say %^$& NO!.

I mean do you want a NAZI for a president?

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/bush-salute.jpg

:lol:

http://www.bushwatch.com/liarliar.jpg

Are you directing this thread?

reminds me of a CNN poll, more liberals than conservatives

As opposed to some polls that are extremely fair like Fox news? :lol:

Why isn't fox allowed to be seen by the democratic people of canada? Since I grew up in the US, I am aware of the limits of the american press.

With all condolences for his passing, Bush is the new Reagan. Not concerned with details. Crazy fluctuating economy. Conviction. Doesnt care what the world thinks. Unpopular in Europe. Unique speaking style.

How about Lincoln? Called crazy because he didnt give a damn what people thought, he pursued his cause.

Truman? Heavyhanded, called a moron because he was southern.

Churchill? Called a warmongerer.

Kennedy? Criticized for getting ahead on his fathers prestige.

Maybe these are stupid comparisons but they pile up. I dont know, i say Bush in the greatest president America has had in a while. The economy? Do we want for president an accountant? Or do we want a leader? Bush is a leader and leaders are never liked by everyone.

I'm sorry Ruby Villa, but Dubya is no Reagan. I didn't like Reagan as president, but Dubya's not worthy to wipe Reagan's ass.

I vote Kerry, but I also vote to keep Bush around....you know, like a court jester or something. Make him do a daily speech/play/song.

I vote Kerry, but I also vote to keep Bush around....you know, like a court jester or something. Make him do a daily speech/play/song.

Don't keep him even as a jester...... but the White House could use an obediant little monkey like him.

You all know a floating-Bush head with a guitar singing about terrorists would be twice as funny as the quiznos monkeys.

its not as if kerry could be worse then bush

and who is a friend of bush, john howard, sorry i had to add that

I've reached a highly mathematical equation for this matter:

BUSH = Shrubbery
Shrubbery = Plant
Plant = Thing with cells
Thing with cells = Jail
Jail = Thing with bars
Thing with bars = Sleazy neighborhood
Sleazy neighborhood = Bad place to be

Thus, shrubbery is a bad place to be because you can get scrapes and cuts. Scrapes and cuts can cause infection, which will develop into terrible disease and cause my death.

Thus, walking into President George W. Bush will cause a stinging sensation and eventual death.

...Or maybe that's not how it went. But I'm going Kerry.

I would have to say Bush. I dont (sic) want somebody that is pro-communist, and wants to give our veterans less in office...not to mention any names *cough*Kerry*cough*

so i guess you really want Kerry, since although we have tossed $200+B into the garbage in Iraq, we completely dropped the ball in trying to help Russia become a democracy and now its falling back to communism, which is loved by bush and his military contractor buddies.

and nobody has cut more from veterans than bush is doing. have you seen the secret 2005 FY va budget plan bush has? it cuts $3B from veterans. its really disingenuous especially considering he just touted a big $1B increase recently.

he is so bad to our soldiers that they have to have bake sales back home just to get used flack jackets to stuff under the seats of their unprotected military vehicles. the budgets are so thin in Iraq for the soldiers that they are now having a bullet shortage. contractors who are bush's friends, though are getting tons of money. our money. we are being ripped off. Iraq is being looted.

satellite photos are showing entire groups of BUILDINGS being stolen. ENTIRE BUILDINGS from Iraq. scrap yards in Jordan are being found to have all sorts of infrastructure of Iraq just sitting there, much of it in perfect condition.

how does this help anybody?

Bush was never elected. he has looted our treasury. he has looted Iraq. Iraq has been a big success for his family. the Carlisle group has made a fortune. nobody stops them. we have to get bush out. the question is, though, with all those bush donors making the voting machines, will we?

-Dave

Dude-put that weed away. You're seeing those little green fairies again aren't you. Come back to reality.

I would have to say Bush. Kerry is too much of a flip-flopper on all the issues. Also, I wish all the liberals would stop jumping on the "we hate Bush just because he's Bush" band wagon. Seems they are just as conformist as us evil conservatives. GO BUSHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :twisted:

Who do you think would be the better President, HONESTLY? Bush or Kerry, and why?


I say, GO BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


YEAH! :D

Certain people here should read the whole thread and not get caught up in only the "anti-conservative" or "anti-GOP" posts.
Fair being fair, any republicans here turned democrat over the last 4 years?
Any democrats turned republican due the same circumstances?
If so, why?
It's not a huge surprise that someone says they vote republican because "they are one".
Partyline thinking requires partyline motivation and obvious cheekturning. Rhetoric is the mantra and the facts come out in some places.
And some people try very hard to stay above the advertisement.
See the first line.

Certain people here should read the whole thread and not get caught up in only the "anti-conservative" or "anti-GOP" posts.
Fair being fair, any republicans here turned democrat over the last 4 years?
Any democrats turned republican due the same circumstances?
If so, why?
It's not a huge surprise that someone says they vote republican because "they are one".
Partyline thinking requires partyline motivation and obvious cheekturning. Rhetoric is the mantra and the facts come out in some places.
And some people try very hard to stay above the advertisement.
See the first line.

I vote for whomever I think will do the best job - be they Independant, Democrat or Republican's. Kerry would knock the USA back to the Carter era and we would all have to convert to Islam or die.

If America is so bad, why do MILLIONS of people try to get here? Freedom and a opportunity to be successful, to name two. A lot of Americans have forgotten what America is all about, and it is not Federal Socialism.

Four more years or the devil wins this round.

Og I hate tis topic because people aren't going to vote for Kerry because he is a good politican they are going to vote for him to get rid of Bush. I htae Bush but the fact is Kerry is half the ploitican as Bush will ever be.

who the fu-k would vote for somebody thats gotten the nation in two wars, one with reason, the other to be a daddies boy, and also slammed the nation into the ground with deficit?

Not that I have a great like for John Kerry, but damn, at least he isn't Bush. I'm not even saying lesser of too evils applies, because I don't think Kerry is evil. Just a bit too centrist for my taste. But at least he isn't a fascist.

Nader



Kerry

Well Bush id kinda Facsist twords muslims.

who the fu-k would vote for somebody thats gotten the nation in two wars, one with reason, the other to be a daddies boy, and also slammed the nation into the ground with deficit?

Which two wars would that be - the one due to the attack on September 11th, 2000 and the one where a power crazed sadistic dictator attacked another nation and then violated the cease fire agreement.

The Federal government has been running a deficit for over 30 years, and it is CONGRESS that does the budget, not the President.

Get your facts straight and stop regurgitating lies.

and the one where a power crazed sadistic dictator attacked another nation and then violated the cease fire agreement

Um, the true irony of this is, we used allies, like power crazed sadistic dictators that were more firmly linked to the 9-11 attacks to root out this rather powerless mad man. Go team. (See Saudi Arabia if you like truly heartless, oppressive regimes.)

and it is CONGRESS that does the budget, not the President.

It's a congress that had millions of dollars poured into it by Bush's fund raising, to ensure it was a republican assembly. And it was Bush who drafted his budget, put American flags on the covers, and flat out said that if his budget wasn't passed, the war on terror was lost/the congressmen were unpatriotic/the end of the world was nigh.

Oddly enough, Bush even though he's republican, stands for many things that run contrary to republican ideology. Like say, running massive deficits, increasing government scope and size, robbing Americans of their rights (see Patriot Act), and on and on and on. Yet many of these people support Bush still, despite the fact that he's taken their ideals and values and used them as so much toilet paper.

The Federal government has been running a deficit for over 30 years

Um, point of fact, when Clinton was leaving office, he left his successor a surplus of 4 trillion dollars. So no, the Federal Government hasn't been running a deficit for over thirty years. Has it been in debt for that long? Without a doubt. Wouldn't it have been nice to actually pay off some of that debt so our children won't have to? Without a doubt. But nah, we'll just keep racking up the debt. After all, it can't hurt us right, it's just play money.

Kerry's not the best choice we could have had. Actually I still wonder what shape we would be in if McCain had won the primaries four years ago. Unlike many of the politicians today, he actually seems to have a shred or two of integrity left to him. That and he's not a complete right wing religious fanatic, as Bush is.

http://www.bushwatch.com/liarliar.jpgStephistan, what I'm wondering is (and I believe I speak for most conservatives here) how can we [conservatives/republicans] expect you to be impartial in moderation and DEATing if you come across as being such a hard-core democrat?

I guess it could be worse... Half of us wouldn't exist now if TRA were a mod :)

Stephistan, what I'm wondering is (and I believe I speak for most conservatives here) how can we [conservatives/republicans] expect you to be impartial in moderation and DEATing if you come across as being such a hard-core democrat?

I guess it could be worse... Half of us wouldn't exist now if TRA were a mod :)If you look at Stephistan's track record, you can see that she's never deated anyone for their political views, and has in fact bent over backward and given repeated warnings instead of deating people just to ensure that she was being fair about it. When she's deated people, it's been because they've broken the rules. She's even given me a warning in the past, told me to calm down, and we're very nearly on the same side on every issue.

So even though I dislike Kerry, I think the concept of the lesser of 2 evils applies....

If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before :wink:

Come on. Hanoi John's afraid of normal person food!
http://www.june24.net/images/john-kerry.jpeg

Has anyone heard the most recent news about the Bush administration? An internal memo was leaked from their Justice Department folks which basically stated that Bush's lawyers were attempting to have the courts recognize executive priviledge to cover allowing the President to order torture.

Alright that wasn't written very well, but the gist is:

President Bush had his lawyers attempt to make it "legal" for the US to torture people (secretly), and explain it by saying that the powers of the Presidency make the whole thing acceptable somehow.

We have in office a man who believes that "executive priviledge," a single phrase in the Constitution, carries more power than the full weight of not only the Geneva Convention but international law in general. A man who lets his administration try and make torture of the sort we invaded Iraq to stop allowable in the United States. I should not have to say to what extent and why such an action is simply, utterly, despicable.

This administration has rolled back civil rights ever since it came into office, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised, but still...

So if you want the police to be able to torture you because your neighbor claimed you were a terrorist, vote for Bush!

EDIT: Just for the record, IMHO John McCain would have made the best president by far of all those who sought the office in 2000. But Bush outflanked him on the right to win the primaries, about the same time he mocked McCain's military service and insinuated that McCain's imprisonment during the Vietnam War had damaged his sanity.

The Federal government has been running a deficit for over 30 years

Um, point of fact, when Clinton was leaving office, he left his successor a surplus of 4 trillion dollars. So no, the Federal Government hasn't been running a deficit for over thirty years. Has it been in debt for that long? Without a doubt. Wouldn't it have been nice to actually pay off some of that debt so our children won't have to? Without a doubt. But nah, we'll just keep racking up the debt. After all, it can't hurt us right, it's just play money.

Kerry's not the best choice we could have had. Actually I still wonder what shape we would be in if McCain had won the primaries four years ago. Unlike many of the politicians today, he actually seems to have a shred or two of integrity left to him. That and he's not a complete right wing religious fanatic, as Bush is.

++++++++

Questions? How do you have a surplus and the deficit still goes up? Is that Eron accounting practices coming into play?

Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual
1950 - 2000
* Rounded to Millions
Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.

Looking for more historical information?
Visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.


Date Amount

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88
12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00 *
12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00 *
12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00 *
12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00 *
12/31/1980 930,210,000,000.00 *
12/31/1979 845,116,000,000.00 *
12/29/1978 789,207,000,000.00 *
12/30/1977 718,943,000,000.00 *
12/31/1976 653,544,000,000.00 *
12/31/1975 576,649,000,000.00 *
12/31/1974 492,665,000,000.00 *

SOURCE:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

Hey IT--if you think about what you just asked, you might figure out why that was a dumb question.

In case you don't get it, here's a hint. The deficit is a yearly number while the debt is a cumulative number. The debt went up while Clinton was in office because it took him until his 6th year in office to get rid of the deficit and even when we ran a surplus, it wasn't used to pay down the national debt--it was used to make Social Security solvent.

Now the $4 trillion that's mentioned--that was phantom money--it was projected surpluses. Of course didn't mention that when he was talking up his first tax cut--he was talking like that was money in the bank when he knew damn well it wasn't (or maybe he didn't--I'm more convinced than ever that he counts on his toes).

But for a little perspective, try comparing the current level of debt under the last 3 years of Bush to the rise in debt under Clinton in 8 years. I'll give you a clue--Bush is damn close to doing in 3 years what it took Clinton 8 to do, and the trends are going in opposite directions. Deficits got progressively smaller under Clinton--they're getting progressively larger under Bush.

Hey IT--if you think about what you just asked, you might figure out why that was a dumb question.

In case you don't get it, here's a hint. The deficit is a yearly number while the debt is a cumulative number. The debt went up while Clinton was in office because it took him until his 6th year in office to get rid of the deficit and even when we ran a surplus, it wasn't used to pay down the national debt--it was used to make Social Security solvent.

Huh?! Talk about doublespeak. If the Federal government outlays more money that it brings in - it is deficit spending, which adds to the debt(10+1=11). If the Federal government has a balanced budget then there is no DEBT added to the National Debt(10+0=10).


Now the $4 trillion that's mentioned--that was phantom money--it was projected surpluses. Of course didn't mention that when he was talking up his first tax cut--he was talking like that was money in the bank when he knew damn well it wasn't (or maybe he didn't--I'm more convinced than ever that he counts on his toes).

Who?


But for a little perspective, try comparing the current level of debt under the last 3 years of Bush to the rise in debt under Clinton in 8 years. I'll give you a clue--Bush is damn close to doing in 3 years what it took Clinton 8 to do, and the trends are going in opposite directions. Deficits got progressively smaller under Clinton--they're getting progressively larger under Bush.

Deficit spending going down - recession rearing it's ugly head the last year of President Clinton's term - 9/11 - war on terror. What did WWII cost in 2004 dollars or what percentage of the GNP was it?

Blaming President Bush on the deficit is like blaming the planet Venus for yesterday's rain. Congress does the budget. President Bush, like me, can go to the bank and ask for money but the bank doesn't have to give it to him or me.

Cut Social programs and PORK.

It's not doublespeak--there are supposedly two places where federal income goes--the general fund and the Social Security trust. I say supposedly because that's the first place Congress usually goes when they start having to borrow money, like they've done the last three years. But we are still responsible for that money in the future because we have to pay Social Security benefits.

PS--the he I mentioned in my paragraph above? That was Bush--the guy who's led the charge for the tax cuts in the last three years, and who will make more if Congress lets him, all the while enlarging the size of government at a faster rate than pretty much anyone but FDR--and FDR had a damn good excuse.

And I do blame the rising deficits on Bush for one simple reason--his party's got both houses of Congress. If they're serious about balancing the budget, they could do so, whether through tax increases or spending cuts or a combination of both. But their record is of more spending and fewer revenues. If Bush wanted it, he'd talk about it. He never--I repeat never--talks about balanced budgets. The best he's talked about is halving the annual deficit sometime in the next ten years and most economists think that under the current tax plan, that's a pipe dream.

Congress (the House specificially must initiate) creates the federal budget, but guess what! the president has the power to veto it.

President Bush currently has set a new record for the number of vetos issued by any American president, at ZERO.

So yes, to some extent, I blame him for the insane deficits. Did the country need those huge tax cuts? The corporate-friendly Medicare "reform" bill? Does the navy really need more Nimitz aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines; does the air force truly require 200 F-22 jet fighters? I do not believe so, and because President Bush has pushed for or at least allowed all those things, he must be significantly responsible.

We need a balanced budget amendment, just as Republicans proposed thirty years ago and then twenty years ago. Too bad they'd never try proposing it now.

http://www.bushwatch.com/liarliar.jpgStephistan, what I'm wondering is (and I believe I speak for most conservatives here) how can we [conservatives/republicans] expect you to be impartial in moderation and DEATing if you come across as being such a hard-core democrat?

I guess this might hold water if I was a "democrat" Since I am a Canadian, that sort of thwarts your argument. :roll:

It's not doublespeak--there are supposedly two places where federal income goes--the general fund and the Social Security trust. I say supposedly because that's the first place Congress usually goes when they start having to borrow money, like they've done the last three years. But we are still responsible for that money in the future because we have to pay Social Security benefits.
++++++++++
You are avoiding my point about there has been a deficit spending for over 30 years. By the way - there is NO Social Security Trust Fund. That is just another bit of misinformation that floats about. Don't ask me to prove it - it is very hard to prove a negative.


PS--the he I mentioned in my paragraph above? That was Bush--the guy who's led the charge for the tax cuts in the last three years, and who will make more if Congress lets him, all the while enlarging the size of government at a faster rate than pretty much anyone but FDR--and FDR had a damn good excuse.
++++++++++
Reaganomics. Taxes started going up again - worked in the 80's - it will work in the new century. Congress needs to cut spending on welfare and pork.


And I do blame the rising deficits on Bush for one simple reason--his party's got both houses of Congress. If they're serious about balancing the budget, they could do so, whether through tax increases or spending cuts or a combination of both. But their record is of more spending and fewer revenues. If Bush wanted it, he'd talk about it. He never--I repeat never--talks about balanced budgets. The best he's talked about is halving the annual deficit sometime in the next ten years and most economists think that under the current tax plan, that's a pipe dream.

House is bigtime Republican - Senate, mmmm 50 R, 49D, 1I. The Republicans can't even get a judge through the Senate, let alone a cutting of the budget. Go ahead, send all the money want out of your pocket to the Federal Government. I'd rather keep mine. More people need to write there representatives to cut the pork out of the Federal budget.

Actually, since the Republican party holds both the House and Senate, they're able to get most of what they want for the budget. Why? Two words--conference committee.

Both House and Senate pass their bills and then the conference committee gets together to hammer out the differences. When different parties control the two houses, that means that deals get cut and compromises are made. Since both houses are held by Republicans, anything the leadership doesn't like gets pulled out of the bill, even if there was an overwhelming vote in favor of it on the floor of the Congress. It happened with the rule to overturn the FCC ownership ruling, and it has happened with other spending bills.

Confirming judges is a different matter completely, because they don't require the approval of the House--only the Senate, and the Democrats have only held up appointments in egregious cases. The Republicans held up a larger percentage when Clinton was President, so if you're bitching, I don't know why.

Congress (the House specificially must initiate) creates the federal budget, but guess what! the president has the power to veto it.

President Bush currently has set a new record for the number of vetos issued by any American president, at ZERO.
++++++++++++
Wrong! http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0801767.html
He is one of eight American Presidents.



So yes, to some extent, I blame him for the insane deficits. Did the country need those huge tax cuts? The corporate-friendly Medicare "reform" bill? Does the navy really need more Nimitz aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines; does the air force truly require 200 F-22 jet fighters? I do not believe so, and because President Bush has pushed for or at least allowed all those things, he must be significantly responsible.
+++++++++++
Recession, 9/11 and war on terror, have nothing to do with the decrease in revenue? Wrong again. In answer to your questions:
YES.
Loaded question - there was no corporate friendly Medicare reform bill.
YES.
Please do some research (try history) and you will find that a strong military with a government not afraid to use it when necessary, enjoy more peace.


We need a balanced budget amendment, just as Republicans proposed thirty years ago and then twenty years ago. Too bad they'd never try proposing it now.
++++++++++++
Damn skippy. We need 30 million people to write their Congressman demanding a balanced budget by cutting welfare and pork. I already sent mine... several times.

Congress (the House specificially must initiate) creates the federal budget, but guess what! the president has the power to veto it.

President Bush currently has set a new record for the number of vetos issued by any American president, at ZERO.

So yes, to some extent, I blame him for the insane deficits. Did the country need those huge tax cuts? The corporate-friendly Medicare "reform" bill? Does the navy really need more Nimitz aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines; does the air force truly require 200 F-22 jet fighters? I do not believe so, and because President Bush has pushed for or at least allowed all those things, he must be significantly responsible.

We need a balanced budget amendment, just as Republicans proposed thirty years ago and then twenty years ago. Too bad they'd never try proposing it now.
You might want to read this about a balanced budget that was kicked around last July by the house.....

http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/floor07-16-03.htm

THE GROWING FEDERAL DEFICIT

House of Representatives - July 16, 2003

The Congressional Record, Pages H7000-H7001

Actually, since the Republican party holds both the House and Senate, they're able to get most of what they want for the budget. Why? Two words--conference committee.

Both House and Senate pass their bills and then the conference committee gets together to hammer out the differences. When different parties control the two houses, that means that deals get cut and compromises are made. Since both houses are held by Republicans, anything the leadership doesn't like gets pulled out of the bill, even if there was an overwhelming vote in favor of it on the floor of the Congress. It happened with the rule to overturn the FCC ownership ruling, and it has happened with other spending bills.

Interesting theory, but politics is politics. There are liberal Republicans *gasp* and conservative Democrats *GASP* and they all want money for thier State or special interest. There is plenty of wheeling and dealing by all and within parties. Write your Congressman and vote out all 8 year+ incumbents.



Confirming judges is a different matter completely, because they don't require the approval of the House--only the Senate, and the Democrats have only held up appointments in egregious cases. The Republicans held up a larger percentage when Clinton was President, so if you're bitching, I don't know why.

You got to be kidding - egregious: conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible. :shock: I don't bitch(much :wink: ), just debate.

Supporting Kerry means supporting Osama bin Laden and his communist homosexual, liberal followers. These people are all the same because they hate our nation. Draw a line in the sand, stand up to the terrorists and vote for Bush.

++++++++++++
Wrong! http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0801767.html
He is one of eight American Presidents.

I stand corrected.


+++++++++++
Recession, 9/11 and war on terror, have nothing to do with the decrease in revenue? Wrong again. In answer to your questions:
YES.
Loaded question - there was no corporate friendly Medicare reform bill.
YES.
Please do some research (try history) and you will find that a strong military with a government not afraid to use it when necessary, enjoy more peace.


And a tax cut aimed almost solely at the rich boosts the economy? When was this idea proven? Yes, there was a recession, yes terrorists attacked us, yes Bush invaded a couple countries. Are the first two his fault? Absolutely no to the first, mostly no to the second. But the best way to fight a recession has never been demonstrated to give the rich more money; the most successful scheme of cutting taxes was Kennedy's, which aimed primarily at the middle/lower class.


"The Medicare compromise pumps $400 billion over ten years into the purchase of prescription drugs. Some of that money will simply displace money people already spend on their own, but much of it will be new money that would not otherwise have been spent. For the drug industry, that means more revenues and profits. But even more important here is what the government isn't doing: forcing down drug prices....So the drug industry ends up with bigger sales but no pressure to lower its prices. Pretty sweet. Apparently that $22 million the industry spent on political contributions in 2002, 80 percent of it on Republicans, was a worthwhile investment.

That being merely the barest part of a single example.

As for the military, how the HELL is having 15 Nimitz carriers better than having "just" 14? We have at least three times more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, and ours are larger, faster, higher tech, with better aircraft to boot. Why do we need yet more? Do we fight insurgents in Baghdad with aircraft carriers and JSF's and Seawolf SSNs? Why no, we fight them with troops. Our "strong" military has been stretched to the limits because it has too much expensive, to borrow your term, "pork" and not enough ground soldiers.

And how the hell does invading Iraq give us "more peace"? We're still throwing money around on the military as if it were still the Cold War, when in reality the problems the military will have to face are nothing like all out armored warfare. I agree that waste and pork barrel must be cut. And I believe the best place to start is the military.

As for the military, how the HELL is having 15 Nimitz carriers better than having "just" 14? We have at least three times more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined, and ours are larger, faster, higher tech, with better aircraft to boot. Why do we need yet more? Do we fight insurgents in Baghdad with aircraft carriers and JSF's and Seawolf SSNs? Why no, we fight them with troops. Our "strong" military has been stretched to the limits because it has too much expensive, to borrow your term, "pork" and not enough ground soldiers.
Given that Aircraft Carriers are huge as they are today are essentially floating war machines, having another one is good. Since they are obviously huge and can't travel as fast as say, a plane, its though to have them travelling from the Perisan Gulf to the Adriatic and then to the Yellow Sea. Keeping another aircraft carrier permenantly off the Korean Penninsula's coastline would allow us to somewhat offset the proposed removal of (some of the) troops from South Korea.

dp

This summers movie:
KERRY vs. Bush

two of the top scariest choices for president
one country
99 millon people
2 insane idelogies

A epic match one will come out with a healthy political carrier the other one will be embaresed and humilated

Who will win?

who will screw up our country the most?

who's kerry?

who's kerry?

Wasn't she the winner of I'm a celebrity get me out of here?

Supporting Kerry means supporting Osama bin Laden and his communist homosexual, liberal followers. These people are all the same because they hate our nation. Draw a line in the sand, stand up to the terrorists and vote for Bush.

Actually since Bush came into office there has been a dramatic increase in terrorist attacks and Al-Qaeda are attracting more and more support worldwide, if I was him I'd certainly want to see George getting another term in office.

Despite all the rhetoric his anti-terrorism record isn't particularly impressive when it's scrutinised, still, so long as he talks a good fight...

For the sake of the world I would say Kerry, for the same reasons I would have said Gore four years ago.

Actually since Bush came into office there has been a dramatic increase in terrorist attacks and Al-Qaeda are attracting more and more support worldwide, if I was him I'd certainly want to see George getting another term in office.

BS. Let's not forget the worst terrorist attack we've ever had happened when the Muslims "liked" us, and no-one had ever heard of Osama bin-Laden. It happened over 10 years after we'd last majorly intervened in the Middle East. Clearly, our policy of "leave them alone and don't go stomp on their extremist, dictatorship hides" didn't work. And what makes u think Al- Qada has more support now than before? Their website gotten more hits than usual? Since Bush's policies started, we haven't had another single terrorist attack in America. No planes have blown up in America. Less Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than died in 9/11 when we were "freindly" with the Muslims.

In the end, you have to look at it this way:
Who do the terrorists want to win? A man who has built his presidency hunting them down, or a man has built his campaign opposing those actions?

There can be only one conclusion: VOTE BUSH



(and Cheney :D )

Actually since Bush came into office there has been a dramatic increase in terrorist attacks and Al-Qaeda are attracting more and more support worldwide, if I was him I'd certainly want to see George getting another term in office.

BS. Let's not forget the worst terrorist attack we've ever had happened when the Muslims "liked" us, and no-one had ever heard of Osama bin-Laden. It happened over 10 years after we'd last majorly intervened in the Middle East. Clearly, our policy of "leave them alone and don't go stomp on their extremist, dictatorship hides" didn't work. And what makes u think Al- Qada has more support now than before? Their website gotten more hits than usual? Since Bush's policies started, we haven't had another single terrorist attack in America. No planes have blown up in America. Less Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than died in 9/11 when we were "freindly" with the Muslims.

In the end, you have to look at it this way:
Who do the terrorists want to win? A man who has built his presidency hunting them down, or a man has built his campaign opposing those actions?

There can be only one conclusion: VOTE BUSH



(and Cheney :D )

I suspect by Bush you mean a man who has diverted a substantial proportion of American military power towards Iraq rather than actually hunting down terrorists. It also seems that Bush was all too keen to ignore potential terrorist threats pre 9/11, maybe that all changed when he realised that the events on that day were sufficiently emotive for him to build his entire re-election campaign on.

I believe that there have been a greater number of terrorist incidents in recent years and that groups such as Al-Qaeda now attract more support based on publicised intelligence reports that indicate thus. The Bush administration had a bit of an embarassment recently when they announced that the number of terrorist incidents had decreased worldwide, they then realised that they had misinterpreted the information and that in fact the opposite was true.

The best way to fight terrorism is not to simply invade every country that is anti-Western, democracies, liberalism and western values cannot be imposed by force, they should be encouraged by political and financial measures, Islamic moderates should be supported, terrorists should be isolated from their communities and targeted by force where necessary. The Bush administration has failed to achieve any of this and by invading and occupying Iraq (a regime which the Bush administration were forced to admit did not have any terrorist connections) has created an epicentre by which hostile anti-Westernism feeds.

I do not advocate isolationism on the part of the U.S, the world is far too small for such a shortsighted measure. However, the aggressive manner in which the U.S now enacts its foreign policy is sowing the seeds of disaster for the future.

Go Nader!

Go Nader!Naders out--this isnt 2000 anymore

Go Nader!Naders out--this isnt 2000 anymore
Last I checked he's running for president.

Go Nader!Naders out--this isnt 2000 anymore
Last I checked he's running for president.yeah but hes taking money from republicans so he ruined his credentials

Go Nader!Naders out--this isnt 2000 anymore
Last I checked he's running for president.yeah but hes taking money from republicans so he ruined his credentials
Really? Which Republican?

All is quiet on the leftist front? Perhaps the Left does not feel the need to engage in such infantile arguments. No matter. I have arrived. ;)
++++++++++++
Why not, I have experienced has seen many Leftist infantile arguments.[/quote]


I will remind you that, if keeping government out of your life is the theme, Bush has created the LARGEST federal organization in history, and has for all intents and purposes ignored the U.S. Constitution in several particular cases in order to violate the privacy of you and every other American citizen in the name of "security".
+++++++++++++
I have my doubts that it is the LARGEST federal organization in history, and Congress had a large hand in its making. I also have a lot of problems with the Patriots Act and have informed my representative of my concerns.


When did conservatives manage to hijack patriotism? It used to be that patriotism was love of the country. Now, rightists have redefined it to mean, "you must blindly follow the leader (when he's a Republican) in every move he makes. Dissent makes you un-American!"
+++++++++++++
Excuse me. Some statements made by our Representatives were inappropiate when our nation is at war. Their views do not need to go through the media and possibly cause a loss of lives.


I am tired of laying out rational posts. If you guys want to see rational posts, run a search for "Shalrirorchia" under the General threads. NOW I will lay into the Right with venom unlike any you have seen out of me before.

You, conservatives, horrify me. Not only have you prostituted yourselves out to the religious right that wants to create a Christian version of the Taliban over here, you've also sold your souls to Corporate America which is busy selling off the American dream to turn a quick profit. Needless to say, not all conservatives have bought into it. But I don't hear many voices raised in opposition to President Bush from your corner. You are guilty by association, by your silence. So long as I have fingers to type and a free mind to think introspectively, I will fight you with every word at my command. I will fight because I am trying to do what's morally and ethically correct. I am fighting to give the greatest amount of freedoms to the most people I possibly can. I am fighting to INSIST that the wealthy and powerful have obligations to society just like every other man and woman...and I am fighting to PUNISH them when they renege on those obligations by voting them out of office or throwing them in jail.
++++++++++++++
Bring it on. I am a conservative - I am not a Christian and maintain that the Federal government should be secular. I voice my opinions to my Representatives, the people around me and reply to Leftists propaganda on this forum. I back up my opinions with facts as necessary. Something I find Leftists seldom do. I am fighting for the same as you stated above, though it seems that we differ in the definition of morally and ethically.


You conservatives follow the leader without fail. If he were to leap off a cliff, I have no doubt that at least some of you would follow him over the edge willingly and without thought.
+++++++++
I can say the same for the majority of liberals.


That's why Republican primaries are tame, preordained affairs and Democratic primaries are wracked with insurgency and chaos, aka Howard Dean. We ALLOW difference of opinion. That is why the liberal movement will always have deeper, broader roots than conservatism...by our nature we include those who you will not.
++++++++++++
Ha! Tame because the way is clear. Democrats have so many loonies for leaders, in my personal opinion, that chaos reins. Fools following bigger fools.


Give us your tired, your weak, your hungry and oppressed masses! WE will do what needs to be done to help them, and a curse upon any conservative's head who tries to stop us.
+++++++++++++
The Democrats want more welfare-Democratic voters but squawk when Republicans help free 25 million people in Iraq to form a free nation for the Iraqis. Free Iraqis do not vote in American elections.


This is not to say that we will invoke the government for every trivial event. But government was instituted by the people to mutual advantage. It is government's responsibility to do that which the individual cannot do, to stay out when it is not needed, and to exercise the wisdom to see between those two situations. You conservative Social Darwinists horrify me. But you will not stop me. This is a storm you've unleashed, but I am the rock upon which the storm shall break. I will never, EVER stop fighting for what I believe to be right, no matter how heavily you and your friends stack the deck against me. THAT is patriotism, sirs. The willingness to fight for the country's ideals when all other lights are snuffed out.
++++++++++
Liberals want to steal from me and millions of other Americans to pay for thier pet projects. Liberals can but won't, form a TRUST and fund it from their pockets to help feed, house and educate the "needy" people they wish to oppress.

Patriotism is love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it, not saying you will supply freedom to the people, as you tie them down with oppressive taxes and welfare handouts so that they can never reach their full potential that America can offer. My proof is the many generations of families on welfare.

Wake up and the smell the freedom that being a responsible english speaking American can bring. A vote for Kerry is a vote for another slave master.

I´m not american. I can only say who I believe is going to win the elections. And I think that on the end of the day President Bush is going to win a second term.
Kerry is a boring New-England aristocrat. He has no chance of winning against Bush. He is unlikely to attract enough voters in the Southern states and in the middle west. He got no change in the important swing states in the south, for example in Florida.
Furthernmore Ralf Nader is going to cost him many crucial votes.

President Bush has broadend the base for the republican party and himself. He is going to get more votes from minority groups than in 2000, e.g. from hispanic and from jewish americans. The latter may not be many votes, but in the close swing states every vote counts.
President Bush is clearly being the favorite in this election and we expect him to win.

Don't sell out the third party, man. vote Nader!

Your only other Bush alternative is this:

http://home.earthlink.net/~mageingham/images/SatanKerry.gif

... Bush will certainly not get more votes from groups representing gays. Less votes for Bush is a good thing, so if he pisses off more gay people, he'll lose more votes which will instead go to Kerry or someone else. I look forward to seeing Bush kicked out of office - even though I am not American.

Thankfully you are not an American so you cannot vote for Nader or Kerry. 8)

A vote for Bush is a vote for more jobs, more money in your pocket, and less terrorist. We can work on Bush to get a smaller Federal footprint, and finding and shipping ILLEGAL immigrants back to their country.

I welcome LEGAL immigrants as long as they work, and want to be english speaking Americans or english speaking workers.