NationStates Jolt Archive

With all of these topics about ousting Bush, let's here the other side of the spectrum. Conservatives, why should Bush be re-elected?

Reynes, oh Reynes......this thread is calling your name!!!

Actually, I would love to hear reasoning beyond the simple propaganda and "can you imagine Gore this..."

Because Bush, believe it or not, is actually a decent president. Certainly better than Gore would have been, and Kerry is evil.

Bush=Amiable person.

Kerry=Evil incarnate.


http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0WwCSHX4c0zdZNcNHdzVjI2Y6tB5WP1!P8wT4iSaIFwQcUHCmEBZrMmebSCiaYMUW7xApq*1B2rJRx4WH3CL4tIDUHPpKGpohCvm *zB53bXkarueQfQW4nIJ7V40Wyj6PT2!EVSYVeVA/Alexander%20Black,%20small.jpg
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Who watches the Watchman? That would be...me.

Because I know were Bush stands and what different things is Kerry going to do?

Because I know were Bush stands and what different things is Kerry going to do?

Could you explain the stances that Bush has that you understand or admire? He's made an awful lot of turnarounds in the last few years so I'm honestly curious about what you admire?

I am a conservative that does not like Bush that much(the reason i dont like him is that he opened to borders to illegal immigrants). But he is actually a good president and MUCH better than "Hanoi" John Kerry. And since the economy is coming back Bush will be re elected and I will rejoice.

Abortion, gay marriage, education, the economy, the war on terror, and also religious ethics.

Abortion, gay marriage, education, the economy, the war on terror, and also religious ethics.

Must*resist*making*commet*about*being*religious*sheep!

Because Bush, believe it or not, is actually a decent president. Certainly better than Gore would have been, and Kerry is evil.

Bush=Amiable person.

Kerry=Evil incarnate.


http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0WwCSHX4c0zdZNcNHdzVjI2Y6tB5WP1!P8wT4iSaIFwQcUHCmEBZrMmebSCiaYMUW7xApq*1B2rJRx4WH3CL4tIDUHPpKGpohCvm *zB53bXkarueQfQW4nIJ7V40Wyj6PT2!EVSYVeVA/Alexander%20Black,%20small.jpg
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Who watches the Watchman? That would be...me.

Yeah, but your not supporting your arguments.

Im a democrat but I don't think that all republicans do a bad job. But Bush had his chance, and in politics you don't always get a second chance.

Moral clarity- also the reason liberals hate him. People who have not yet realized the line between good and evil hate that he can make up his mind and they can't.

Economic growth- we have had the best quarter growth in 20 yrs, lowest unemployment in 40yrs.

Abortion, gay marriage, education, the economy, the war on terror, and also religious ethics.

Ok, I understand the abortion, but the rest are all positions that Bush has changed over the past several years.

Bush campaigned in 2000 for gay marriage to be an issue left up to the states to decide. Now he proposes a constitutional amendment, robbing the states of their rights.

The economy is where he called for fiscal responsibility during the 2000 campaign. Now he says that deficit spending is healthy.

The war on terror was not even an issue for Bush during the early part of his presidency until it was thrust upon him. Then he vowed to get bin Laden. Now he's been quoted as having said that bin Laden really isn't that important to catch.

Religious ethics is what bothers me the most. His God apparently is the God of the Old Testament, but it seems that he's failed to read any of the New Testament, with the exception of Revelations. That concerns me greatly. Plus, it is bothersome that he would choose to preach his message from a place like Bob Jones University, an "institution" that preaches intolerance and hatred, especially towards Catholics. As a Catholic, I find his practice of Christianity to ring hollow. I've never heard any of my priests say that the other Christian religions fundamentally incorrect. Technical differences yes but the crux of each Christian religion is the same. Why would Bush then chose to discount the views of Catholics?

I hope you don't think I'm jumping on you Lance because I honestly would like to hear more about those stances from Bush that you like. What about those stances do you approve of?

[quote="Roania"]Because Bush, believe it or not, is actually a decent president. Certainly better than Gore would have been, and Kerry is evil.

Bush=Amiable person.

Kerry=Evil incarnate.


Statistically and literally...Bush is a failing President.
Numbers dont lie.

What do you have to say about that?

Are soldiers are in Iraq dieing for corporate interest. What else is new?

Moral clarity- also the reason liberals hate him. People who have not yet realized the line between good and evil hate that he can make up his mind and they can't.

No that's not the point. Just because he can easily make up his mind doesn't mean he should. The consequences are too great if he chooses incorrectly. I do not question that the line exists, but I question whether or not he knows where that line stands.

"There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Numbers don't lie, but people do.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Yes, by all means re-elect Bush if you want the rest of the world to hate American foreign policy. He has done the job better than any president I can remember. And if you perhaps are one of those who say 'screw the rest of the world', fine. But remember your words if after four more years of Bush, the globalisation that America is largely responsible for instituting, it turns against the US and does more and more deals outside.

Put it this way... I'd rather have clinton than kerry... and if he/she was somehow running against Bush, I'd consider clinton... but right now... it's Bush or kerry... soo... a guy who took us to war... or a guy who hides from his record... I'll take Bush.

Put it this way... I'd rather have clinton than kerry... and if he/she was somehow running against Bush, I'd consider clinton... but right now... it's Bush or kerry... soo... a guy who took us to war... or a guy who hides from his record... I'll take Bush.
Would Bush be both of those people?

Hiding his service record?

and starting an unjust war?

To some of us Conservatives taking out Saddam wasn't unjust.

To some of us Conservatives taking out Saddam wasn't unjust.

How so?

To some of us Conservatives taking out Saddam wasn't unjust.

How so?oh i dunno... maybe because he was an evil madman who was killing his own people, funding and harboring terrorists, and quite possibly had WMD programs for terrorists...

To some of us Conservatives taking out Saddam wasn't unjust.

How so?oh i dunno... maybe because he was an evil madman who was killing his own people, funding and harboring terrorists, and quite possibly had WMD programs for terrorists...

Um....so now we attack countries because they might be bad and might be doing bad things? How long are we going to have to listen to the harboring terrorists stuff? Its a total sham.

In the meantime, nuclear experts from Pakistan are selling secrets about WMD to any country willing to listen, but that's apparently ok because Pakistan is now an ally. Never mind that its now open knowledge to the world that nuclear secrets were obtained by Iran, North Korea, and China through Pakistan. Let's instead focus on the guy who had an old shell filled with sarin that was chemically breaking down.

Why should Bush be re-elected?
He shouldn't. End.

To some of us Conservatives taking out Saddam wasn't unjust.
All things considered, was it worth the money, the lives, the shame, and the pain?

Has it made you feel safer?

Has it helped reduce terrorism?

Has it truly been worth it?

He should be.

Fin

To some of us Conservatives taking out Saddam wasn't unjust.
All things considered, was it worth the money, the lives, the shame, and the pain?

Has it made you feel safer?

Has it helped reduce terrorism?

Has it truly been worth it?

No, it hasn't.

To some of us Conservatives taking out Saddam wasn't unjust.
All things considered, was it worth the money, the lives, the shame, and the pain?

Has it made you feel safer?

Has it helped reduce terrorism?

Has it truly been worth it?

http://www.dhs.gov/Editorial/images/150-hsas.gif

Never been below an elevated risk. Our own government has shown that we aren't safer, it wasn't worth it, and it hasn't helped reduce terrorism. But who cares when you can falsify reports saying that the policies work!

Well Bush is alright in his run of the government though he made some flaws but atleast he knows what is going on and has an idea of past, present happenings..Right now with war is the emphasis of the country, the democrat John Carey has good platform as to development of the country, but as to international affairs he is beaten by Bush...Bush has done a great job in his leadership and presidency...its inevitable and is difficult to have the such problems arising one after the another.. piling on him...People use quotes from his platform of developing the countryand etc. But yet they didnt noticed that Bush wants that to happen but there are more issues that needs to be face because if not, then such developmental thoughts and proposal will be useless for the future...Bush would be a better leader the next term that Carey! due to his greater experience than Carey in running the government, his better ideas and knowledge of the enemy, and he is Bush he is a republican..Republican rockz!

s.s. heinreich!

Well Bush is alright in his run of the government though he made some flaws but atleast he knows what is going on and has an idea of past, present happenings..Right now with war is the emphasis of the country, the democrat John Carey has good platform as to development of the country, but as to international affairs he is beaten by Bush...Bush has done a great job in his leadership and presidency...its inevitable and is difficult to have the such problems arising one after the another.. piling on him...People use quotes from his platform of developing the countryand etc. But yet they didnt noticed that Bush wants that to happen but there are more issues that needs to be face because if not, then such developmental thoughts and proposal will be useless for the future...Bush would be a better leader the next term that Carey! due to his greater experience than Carey in running the government, his better ideas and knowledge of the enemy, and he is Bush he is a republican..Republican rockz!

s.s. heinreich!

What????

He should be re-elected so he can drive the country deeper into debt! So he can throw more standardized tests our way and eliminate actual learning! So he can use false claims to invade another country and completely tear down their government and give them no time to adjust! (i'm not saying it didn't need help)
What a winner.

why do people honestly think bush is a good president. there is specific issue that bush supports that need arguing.

Gay marrige.
why should homosexual people not have the right to be married? marrige is not about what sex you are or whether you are able to have children.

To some of us Conservatives taking out Saddam wasn't unjust.
All things considered, was it worth the money, the lives, the shame, and the pain?

Has it made you feel safer?

Has it helped reduce terrorism?

Has it truly been worth it?

http://www.dhs.gov/Editorial/images/150-hsas.gif

Never been below an elevated risk. Our own government has shown that we aren't safer, it wasn't worth it, and it hasn't helped reduce terrorism. But who cares when you can falsify reports saying that the policies work!.... LOL

Man... you have been listening to way too much Michael Moore... The liberation of Iraq won't have THAT drastic of an effect on our country only 15 months after the war started... heck, the war in Afghanistan didn't lower our terror level, did it?

The liberation of Iraq is the first step in a chain reaction that will spread democracy and security to the fragile and hostile neighboring nations. Getting rid of corrupt terror-run Islamofascist states is what will drop our terror level and forward a more peaceful world.

But my point is, there is no one event that could by itself drop our terror level below elevated... if you think there is, then you are living in a sad excuse for reality.

why do people honestly think bush is a good president. there is specific issue that bush supports that need arguing.

Gay marrige.
why should homosexual people not have the right to be married? marrige is not about what sex you are or whether you are able to have children.Why Should homosexual people have the right to marry someone of the same sex?

why do people honestly think bush is a good president. there is specific issue that bush supports that need arguing.

Gay marrige.
why should homosexual people not have the right to be married? marrige is not about what sex you are or whether you are able to have children.why should a minority be allowed to define what marriage is? For that matter, why should the government have anything to do with defining marriage?

Why shouldn't we be able to marry dolphins?

No one cares! let them live their lives. For God's sake, it's not like their marriage would cause you to spontaneously combust or to become gay! Grow up.

Why shouldn't we be able to marry dolphins?



Yeah, Dolphins are sexy animals! :evil: :wink: :lol:

The liberation of Iraq won't have THAT drastic of an effect on our country only 15 months after the war started...

Wrong.

Iraq is now a breeding ground for Al- Qeada, as where it was NOT before.

No one cares! let them live their lives. For God's sake, it's not like their marriage would cause you to spontaneously combust or to become gay! Grow up.



I saw somebody see to gay men kiss, after he saw them he blew up. :lol:

The liberation of Iraq won't have THAT drastic of an effect on our country only 15 months after the war started...

Wrong.

Iraq is now a breeding ground for Al- Qeada, as where it was NOT before.It was before the war. These are the facts provided by the 9/11 commission, if you care to read further down an article than the headlines.

No one cares! No one cares about the definition of marriage? 2/3 of americans believe Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman... want to try to argue that they don't care about marriage?

The liberation of Iraq won't have THAT drastic of an effect on our country only 15 months after the war started...

Wrong.

Iraq is now a breeding ground for Al- Qeada, as where it was NOT before.prove it. prove there was no al qaeda connection before the war.

The liberation of Iraq won't have THAT drastic of an effect on our country only 15 months after the war started...

Wrong.

Iraq is now a breeding ground for Al- Qeada, as where it was NOT before.It was before the war. These are the facts provided by the 9/11 commission, if you care to read further down an article than the headlines.

What the hell are you talking about?

The same commission that saw NO CLEAR LINK BETWEEN AL-QEADA, AND IRAQ?

The liberation of Iraq won't have THAT drastic of an effect on our country only 15 months after the war started...

Wrong.

Iraq is now a breeding ground for Al- Qeada, as where it was NOT before.It was before the war. These are the facts provided by the 9/11 commission, if you care to read further down an article than the headlines.

What the hell are you talking about?

The same commission that saw NO CLEAR LINK BETWEEN AL-QEADA, AND IRAQ?

READ THE WHOLE REPORT!!! :roll:

I'm against abortion unless it's in extreme situations like the life of the mother is in danger or neither can survive if she continues to carry the child... because I was almost aborted myself. I competition shot guns for years and I didn't kill anyone.... I'm in the military and a military brat. I can't think of one reason why Bush doesn't support what I want. I feel much safer with him as president then Clinton, Kerry, or Gore.

The only thing I do disagree upon is gay marriages... I could care less to tell you the truth. I'm a Christian and I come from a small town, but... I don't really care what Harry and Bill do when they are 'partners'. If celebrities can get married after knowing each other a week... then why can't two people that have been together for years not marry legally? I can also understand the Christian side of it, but we have to be careful in separating our religions from our government because not everyone is Christian in the United States.

The truth is... is that a president can set up an economy during his presidency and you won't see until the next one. Bush Sr. set up our economy to ride through the Clinton years and that we did... we just had to send in another Bush to clean it up. Through 9/11, Saddam's capture (something we had to take care of before our children had to like we were are of the children of the Korean era that our parents went through and please don't complain about the war on terrorism... the daughter of a Marine and in the Air Force myself... I have friends over there and my dad's been there... I'm willing and so is my father... we know what we're fighting for and I'm sorry, but... bite me all that sit at home safe to criticize i.e. Michael Moore when you have no idea other than what you see on the news), and the economy.... Bush has been there. I could care less if he can't say a guy's name right... The man can lead and lead he does with a good heart! I think Bush has done an awesome job with the economy just since 9/11... and if you don't think so and elect someone else... see how smoothly we ride through that president's term before another president has to clean it up again.

No one cares! No one cares about the definition of marriage? 2/3 of americans believe Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman... want to try to argue that they don't care about marriage? An open mind never hurt anyone. Marriage to the people that have been fighting for it for so long is so much more meaningful than those who can just go get married whenever they want, and I think that matters more.

To some of us Conservatives taking out Saddam wasn't unjust.
All things considered, was it worth the money, the lives, the shame, and the pain?

Has it made you feel safer?

Has it helped reduce terrorism?

Has it truly been worth it?

http://www.dhs.gov/Editorial/images/150-hsas.gif

Never been below an elevated risk. Our own government has shown that we aren't safer, it wasn't worth it, and it hasn't helped reduce terrorism. But who cares when you can falsify reports saying that the policies work!.... LOL

Man... you have been listening to way too much Michael Moore... The liberation of Iraq won't have THAT drastic of an effect on our country only 15 months after the war started... heck, the war in Afghanistan didn't lower our terror level, did it?

The liberation of Iraq is the first step in a chain reaction that will spread democracy and security to the fragile and hostile neighboring nations. Getting rid of corrupt terror-run Islamofascist states is what will drop our terror level and forward a more peaceful world.

But my point is, there is no one event that could by itself drop our terror level below elevated... if you think there is, then you are living in a sad excuse for reality.
How many EVENTS will it take? How many more countrys, how many more dead, how many more dollars?

There are over a billion practioners of the Islamic faith. Gonna convert them all to DEMOCRACY?

Do you think they are all gonna shed their religious beliefs and trade in their garments for blue jeans, fast cars and fast women, and x rated movies?

The liberation of Iraq won't have THAT drastic of an effect on our country only 15 months after the war started...

Wrong.

Iraq is now a breeding ground for Al- Qeada, as where it was NOT before.It was before the war. These are the facts provided by the 9/11 commission, if you care to read further down an article than the headlines.

What the hell are you talking about?

The same commission that saw NO CLEAR LINK BETWEEN AL-QEADA, AND IRAQ?There was no clear link between Iraq and Al-Qeada in the planning of the 9/11 attacks! THere were numerous Al-Queda ties to Iraq. Abu Nidal.

To some of us Conservatives taking out Saddam wasn't unjust.
All things considered, was it worth the money, the lives, the shame, and the pain?

Has it made you feel safer?

Has it helped reduce terrorism?

Has it truly been worth it?

http://www.dhs.gov/Editorial/images/150-hsas.gif

Never been below an elevated risk. Our own government has shown that we aren't safer, it wasn't worth it, and it hasn't helped reduce terrorism. But who cares when you can falsify reports saying that the policies work!.... LOL

Man... you have been listening to way too much Michael Moore... The liberation of Iraq won't have THAT drastic of an effect on our country only 15 months after the war started... heck, the war in Afghanistan didn't lower our terror level, did it?

The liberation of Iraq is the first step in a chain reaction that will spread democracy and security to the fragile and hostile neighboring nations. Getting rid of corrupt terror-run Islamofascist states is what will drop our terror level and forward a more peaceful world.

But my point is, there is no one event that could by itself drop our terror level below elevated... if you think there is, then you are living in a sad excuse for reality.

Yeah, you're right, I don't know what I'm talking about. Obviously democracy will now spread across the Middle East like the chain reaction you speak of. Sure its going to. Supplant systems that have been in place for 2 thousand years. We decimate a country that wasn't harboring terrorists and install a democracy with leaders not even safe outside their compounds and its going to spread around the region. Just like it has throughout Afghanistan. After all, the democracy project there has worked so well right?

But why listen to me? After all, I apparently don't understand anything unless Michael Moore says it first of course. I've never been to Iraq or been in the military or anything. I don't understand the intricacies of what is really going. Oh, wait a second......I was in the military and did serve in Iraq during the Gulf War.

Maybe Raysian, what you are either missing or are blind to is the fact that we are toppling a regime that we put in power in the first place. We've spent 50 years tinkering with the politics in Iraq. The people there have been seeing this for their entire lives. The rest of the Middle East has seen the same thing. This is not the seeds of democracy being planted but rather the cleaning up of a mess that we created in the first place. Maybe you should take the time to see how well Afghanistan is going right now. Why can't the Afghani president leave Kabul? Is it because democracy is working so well that he just has too many of his constituents at his office door to take the time out to leave the city?

No al Qaeda, Iraq cooperation
The panel said it found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The Bush administration has said the terrorist network and Iraq were linked.

In response, a senior administration official traveling with President Bush in Tampa, Florida, said, "We stand by what Powell and Tenet have said," referring to previous statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet that described such links.

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations that Iraq was harboring Abu Musab Zarqawi, a "collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," and he said Iraq's denials of ties to al Qaeda "are simply not credible."

In September, Cheney said Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bush, responding to criticism of Cheney's comment, said there was no evidence Saddam's government was linked to the September 11 attacks.

Just this week Bush and Cheney have made comments alleging ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. (Full story)

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry said, "the administration misled America."

"The administration reached too far," he told Detroit radio station WDET. "They did not tell the truth to Americans about what was happening or their own intentions."

The commission's report says bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to [Saddam] Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.

"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda."

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.

"Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied" any relationship, the report said.

No one cares! No one cares about the definition of marriage? 2/3 of americans believe Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman... want to try to argue that they don't care about marriage? An open mind never hurt anyone. Marriage to the people that have been fighting for it for so long is so much more meaningful than those who can just go get married whenever they want, and I think that matters more.what the eff does an open mind have to do with traditional value definitions?

So the relationship you are so fond of quoting is that of al-Qaeda requesting things from Iraq and Iraq never responding? So if I ask you for a million dollars and you don't respond can I then say that you are aiding me and are now my best friend?

Wow, on that same note, did you know that I own the White House? After all, I sent a letter to the president and asked him if he would give it to me to own and he didn't respond, so now it must be mine!

By this logic, I could easily be a billionaire before days' end.

what the eff does an open mind have to do with traditional value definitions? About as much as you turning this topic into a debate about gay marriage does.
NOTHING! Take your biases elsewhere!

Look, hopefully we all know that this isn't really a question of morals or religion. It is the money, the bling bling, the greenies, the gold, the...... Look, if we can redefine the rules of marrying, why not redefine it so I can marry my Barbie so I will get the marraige benefits on my taxes?


FOLLOW THE MONEY

bush is such a little fuck.

why would bush care if two gay people got married? does bush not want gay couples to have the same financial benefits as hetero couples?

and fuck that family values shit. two people living together in harmony and mutual respect... that is a family. you don't need to have children to have a family, and even if you have children, that doesnt mean you have family values. why doesnt bush do something about the fucking divorce rate instead of worry about gay people.

and also, the patriot act?! thats some horrible shit. law enforcement should never have that much power.

why doesnt bush start his war on terror in the united states? theres plenty of terror here. plenty of crime. plenty of economic struggle.

whatever. if bush gets another four years, i'm moving to canada.

very couth.

Here is the problem. WE have found biological traces of chemical weapons in wellknown Iraqi scientists homes, we have found portable labs. Now, for those of you liberals that say "well we haven't found any WMD's ya yah yah" isn't that just foolish? I mean, if you were a prison guard, and you walked past Saddam's cell, and it was empty, would you think "well now that he is gone we don't have to worry about him?"????????? The fact that we have not found WMD's disturbs me, because they are most likley in the hands of Libya, Osama, Hamas, Palistien (crap spell), and other terrorist organizations.

Abortion. Hotly debated topic. Let me qoute facts. To the people who rally behind "to save the life of the mother", the committee appointed to research abortion within the government found that only 17 aboortions were needed last year to save the life, but 1.3 million abortions were performed. Poor Hilary Clinton. She describes partial birth abortion "a small needle-like apparatus is placed inside the object's mouth, then turned slightly, then the non-living object is removed from the women's womb" YEAH. PC, anyone? BAsically, in English, the actual procedure involves plunging scissors into the newborn babies mouth, twistng them vigorously, and then tossing the baby in the trash. Inhumane? You decide

whatever. if bush gets another four years, i'm moving to canada.

please do

whatever. if bush gets another four years, i'm moving to canada.

please doHey, I'll drive you there myself in my giant SUV.

Here is the problem. WE have found biological traces of chemical weapons in wellknown Iraqi scientists homes, we have found portable labs. Now, for those of you liberals that say "well we haven't found any WMD's ya yah yah" isn't that just foolish? I mean, if you were a prison guard, and you walked past Saddam's cell, and it was empty, would you think "well now that he is gone we don't have to worry about him?"????????? The fact that we have not found WMD's disturbs me, because they are most likley in the hands of Libya, Osama, Hamas, Palistien (crap spell), and other terrorist organizations.

Abortion. Hotly debated topic. Let me qoute facts. To the people who rally behind "to save the life of the mother", the committee appointed to research abortion within the government found that only 17 aboortions were needed last year to save the life, but 1.3 million abortions were performed. Poor Hilary Clinton. She describes partial birth abortion "a small needle-like apparatus is placed inside the object's mouth, then turned slightly, then the non-living object is removed from the women's womb" YEAH. PC, anyone? BAsically, in English, the actual procedure involves plunging scissors into the newborn babies mouth, twistng them vigorously, and then tossing the baby in the trash. Inhumane? You decide

Libya and Palestine are now terrorist organisations? nice..

very couth.
Perhaps he leaned it from Cheney? :shock:

whatever. if bush gets another four years, i'm moving to canada.

please doHey, I'll drive you there myself in my giant SUV.

hey, he wont like that. We will kill mr tree with our big gas guzzling monsters. Poor little Trashington. WE might hit his nature friends (see bunny/squirrel) on the way there. Seriously, I wish all these people who say this crap would actually d it. Then, that way we could be rid over Barbara Striesand too.

abortion.

let me just say. i am pro-choice as well as pro-life. im not against someone choosing to have an abortion and i'm not against life.

i think that anyone who is against abortion because of a respect of life better damn well be against the death penalty and for environmental causes. if you really respect life, you wont fucking have people killed for mistakes that they have made. and you will realise that humans arent the only lifeforms. the environment gets "aborted" all the time by corporate filth and greedy politicians.

back to abortion, i think you need to realise that there is a choice, even if you disagree with it. and the choice is not for you to make. its up to the parents, particularly the mother. if you know you can't afford to raise a child, and you know that you've made a mistake, don't bring an unwanted life into the world that you can't possibly provide for.

whatever. if bush gets another four years, i'm moving to canada.

please doHey, I'll drive you there myself in my giant SUV.

hey, he wont like that. We will kill mr tree with our big gas guzzling monsters. Poor little Trashington. WE might hit his nature friends (see bunny/squirrel) on the way there. Seriously, I wish all these people who say this crap would actually d it. Then, that way we could be rid over Barbara Striesand too.Actually, I ran over a hare today with my truck, then backed up to finish it.

whatever. if bush gets another four years, i'm moving to canada.

please doHey, I'll drive you there myself in my giant SUV.

fuck you.

Libya and Palestine are now terrorist organisations? nice..

No, but they harbor terrorist organizations...

hey, he wont like that. We will kill mr tree with our big gas guzzling monsters. Poor little Trashington. WE might hit his nature friends (see bunny/squirrel) on the way there. Seriously, I wish all these people who say this crap would actually d it. Then, that way we could be rid over Barbara Striesand too.Hey, if you're trying to mock someone, be funny about it. Instead of juvenile. You make yourself lose credibility when you stoop to that.

Iraq Survey Chief: More WMD Found

The head of the U.S. team conducting the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq announced on Thursday that his group has uncovered at least ten more artillery shells filled with banned chemical weapons and is finding new WMD evidence "almost every day."

"We've found ten or twelve Sarin and Mustard rounds," said Charles Duelfer, who replaced David Kay as head of the Iraq survey group earlier this year after Kay concluded that WMDs were unlikely to be found.

"We're not sure how many more are out there that we haven't found," Duelfer added, in an exclusive interview with Fox News Channel's Brit Hume. "There are still surprises out there. We're finding things and we're getting reports of hidden caches almost every day which we have to investigate."
Last month, the Pentagon confirmed that the first of the Iraq WMD findings - two shells suspected of containing deadly chemical weapons - were indeed filled with Sarin and Mustard gas.

Still, despite the mounting tally of confirmed WMD findings, administration critics continue to insist that "Bush lied" about the presence of such weapons in Iraq before the war.

Duelfer told Fox that even if the shells had degraded over time, they were still capable of killing "dozens" of people. He warned that both soldiers and civilians in Iraq should carry gas masks and have access to chem-bio suits.

Before joining the U.S. team, Duelfer was a U.N. weapons inspector and was among the few who had investigated Saddam's top secret terrorist training camp Salman Pak.

In 2001 he confirmed that elite Fedayeen troops were conducting airplane hijacking drills aboard a parked Boeing 707, dismissing claims from Iraqi officials that what he saw was "counterterrorism training."

"Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter'," Duelfer told the London Observer. "I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq."

whatever. if bush gets another four years, i'm moving to canada.

please doHey, I'll drive you there myself in my giant SUV.

hey, he wont like that. We will kill mr tree with our big gas guzzling monsters. Poor little Trashington. WE might hit his nature friends (see bunny/squirrel) on the way there. Seriously, I wish all these people who say this crap would actually d it. Then, that way we could be rid over Barbara Striesand too.Actually, I ran over a hare today with my truck, then backed up to finish it.
good. One less stupid life form

whatever. if bush gets another four years, i'm moving to canada.

please doHey, I'll drive you there myself in my giant SUV.

hey, he wont like that. We will kill mr tree with our big gas guzzling monsters. Poor little Trashington. WE might hit his nature friends (see bunny/squirrel) on the way there. Seriously, I wish all these people who say this crap would actually d it. Then, that way we could be rid over Barbara Striesand too.Actually, I ran over a hare today with my truck, then backed up to finish it.
good. One less stupid life form

man you guys are so funny. why dont you form your own republican nation where you can kill whatever you'd like? oh, except a fetus.

whatever. if bush gets another four years, i'm moving to canada.

please doHey, I'll drive you there myself in my giant SUV.

hey, he wont like that. We will kill mr tree with our big gas guzzling monsters. Poor little Trashington. WE might hit his nature friends (see bunny/squirrel) on the way there. Seriously, I wish all these people who say this crap would actually d it. Then, that way we could be rid over Barbara Striesand too.Actually, I ran over a hare today with my truck, then backed up to finish it.
good. One less stupid life formI live in Southern Arizona, the road cooked him for me, I just threw on some BBQ souce, and 'et him.

whatever. if bush gets another four years, i'm moving to canada.

please doHey, I'll drive you there myself in my giant SUV.

hey, he wont like that. We will kill mr tree with our big gas guzzling monsters. Poor little Trashington. WE might hit his nature friends (see bunny/squirrel) on the way there. Seriously, I wish all these people who say this crap would actually d it. Then, that way we could be rid over Barbara Striesand too.Actually, I ran over a hare today with my truck, then backed up to finish it.
good. One less stupid life form

I'm always curious about when people come along and start making comments such as these all of a sudden and their post count is like 2 or 3. It makes me wonder who felt the need to create a puppet.

To some of us Conservatives taking out Saddam wasn't unjust.

How so?oh i dunno... maybe because he was an evil madman who was killing his own people, funding and harboring terrorists, and quite possibly had WMD programs for terrorists...

Um....so now we attack countries because they might be bad and might be doing bad things?
Yeah, we do. Its like Clinton atacking Slobadan Milosovic but on a bigger scale. We bypassed the UN there, too. Lefties didn't have a big problem with it.

I believe that, wherever we go, whether it be Liberia, Somalia, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Iraq, or anywhere else, if we take out a dictator and help to bring freedom and democracy to people, then we've done a good thing.

To some of us Conservatives taking out Saddam wasn't unjust.

How so?oh i dunno... maybe because he was an evil madman who was killing his own people, funding and harboring terrorists, and quite possibly had WMD programs for terrorists...

Um....so now we attack countries because they might be bad and might be doing bad things?
Yeah, we do. Its like Clinton atacking Slobadan Milosovic but on a bigger scale. We bypassed the UN there, too. Lefties didn't have a big problem with it.

I believe that, wherever we go, whether it be Liberia, Somalia, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Iraq, or anywhere else, if we take out a dictator and help to bring freedom and democracy to people, then we've done a good thing.

That Saddam Hussein is no longer in power is a good thing, that some degree of freedom and some degree of democracy have been brought to the region is also a good thing. But there are other considerations that must be brought into the equation.

Like for example the fact that the case of Islamic moderates, liberals and reformists has been dealt such a body blow by the tidal wave of anti-westernism that the Iraq war has produced that their case will be set back decades.

Like for example the fact that the possibility of some kind of Arab-Western accord which could promote democracy, liberalism, freedom and capitalism has been smashed.

Like the fact that the upsurgence of terrorism across the Middle East not only destabilises many regimes making them at risk from Islamic fundamentalists, makes them less effective at governing and introduces a climate of fear that will prevent democracy from taking root.

Bringing freedom and democracy to the world is a good thing and a goal which the west must work towards, for its own self interest as much as the interest of others. Invading Iraq however, has not done this.

Bringing freedom and democracy to the world is a good thing and a goal which the west must work towards, for its own self interest as much as the interest of others. Invading Iraq however, has not done this.
I don't see how Iraq has affected these things in other countries. To say that Iraq is responsible for the Anti-Westernism/Anti-Americanism in the Arab World isn't true, the Israel-Palestine situation is. Back in the 1970's we were still the Great Satan and people still hated us. There was no real sign that these countries were going to move to democracy if we had no invaded Iraq.

There's a difference between Anti-Americanism and anti-reformism, though. In a recent post-Iraq Arab League summit, the Leader of Tunisia wanted to make democracy an issue on the table. Saudi Arabia's slowly giving power (regional elections), and they're probably the most restrictive of any of the Arab regimes. Iraq of course will be much freer than it used to be. Iraq won't stop reform and democracy, on the other hand, it will bring it faster. If regimes like those in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan feel threatened by terorrists, they'll slowly change from their old ways - as they are - and try to gain support of the people. The economist just did a lengthy report on Arab's views towards womens rights. In the seven countries surveyed, about half of the people were seriously concerned with improving Women's rights - with a high of 70% in Saudi Arabia.

I cannot think of a single reason to elect him in the first palce. "Re-elect him?"

Bringing freedom and democracy to the world is a good thing and a goal which the west must work towards, for its own self interest as much as the interest of others. Invading Iraq however, has not done this.
I don't see how Iraq has affected these things in other countries. To say that Iraq is responsible for the Anti-Westernism/Anti-Americanism in the Arab World isn't true, the Israel-Palestine situation is. Back in the 1970's we were still the Great Satan and people still hated us. There was no real sign that these countries were going to move to democracy if we had no invaded Iraq.

There's a difference between Anti-Americanism and anti-reformism, though. In a recent post-Iraq Arab League summit, the Leader of Tunisia wanted to make democracy an issue on the table. Saudi Arabia's slowly giving power (regional elections), and they're probably the most restrictive of any of the Arab regimes. Iraq of course will be much freer than it used to be. Iraq won't stop reform and democracy, on the other hand, it will bring it faster. If regimes like those in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan feel threatened by terorrists, they'll slowly change from their old ways - as they are - and try to gain support of the people. The economist just did a lengthy report on Arab's views towards womens rights. In the seven countries surveyed, about half of the people were seriously concerned with improving Women's rights - with a high of 70% in Saudi Arabia.
All this talk about bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to Iraq is hogwash. First, that was NOT the stated goal of the invasion, or did you forget that Bush was acting in the name of the "War on Terrorism"? Bush stated that Iraq was a "threat" to the US, and had WMD, and was allied with Al-Queda.

Having found NO WMD, and NO connections to Al-Queda, it has become the convenient excuse that the Coalition was there to "liberate" Iraq. Oh and to help out in this "liberation", the US has conveniently installed a "puppet" government that must follow "Bremer's Orders". Oh, and how kind of the US to "liberate" Iraq, while taking control of most Iraqi businesses, with up to 100% control of same by foreigners.

Have you stopped to think that the Iraqi people do NOT want US style "democracy"? Last polls I saw, was overwhelmingly in favour of the US going home as soon as possible.

Have you stopped to think that the Iraqi people do NOT want "sex, drugs, and rock and roll", nor do they want YOUR religion?

Have you stopped to think that you have proved to the Iraqi people that you are indeed "infidels" by dropping bombs on them, and by torturing them?

Have you stopped to think that the Iraqi people do NOT want the US there and are willing to commit suicide to deter your presence? This kind of stuff has been going on in Israel for how long? when will this hatred stop?

Is it a question of how long will it take for these people to get the message, or is it a question of how long will it take for us to get the message?

It is also hard for me to believe that the US has compassion for these people, considering the US has its' own domestic problems. I have often seen it stated (right here on these threads) a lack of compassion for the people living in poverty in the US, and yet your government will spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to "liberate" some poor Iraqi? Give me a break!!

Bringing freedom and democracy to the world is a good thing and a goal which the west must work towards, for its own self interest as much as the interest of others. Invading Iraq however, has not done this.
I don't see how Iraq has affected these things in other countries. To say that Iraq is responsible for the Anti-Westernism/Anti-Americanism in the Arab World isn't true, the Israel-Palestine situation is. Back in the 1970's we were still the Great Satan and people still hated us. There was no real sign that these countries were going to move to democracy if we had no invaded Iraq.

There's a difference between Anti-Americanism and anti-reformism, though. In a recent post-Iraq Arab League summit, the Leader of Tunisia wanted to make democracy an issue on the table. Saudi Arabia's slowly giving power (regional elections), and they're probably the most restrictive of any of the Arab regimes. Iraq of course will be much freer than it used to be. Iraq won't stop reform and democracy, on the other hand, it will bring it faster. If regimes like those in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan feel threatened by terorrists, they'll slowly change from their old ways - as they are - and try to gain support of the people. The economist just did a lengthy report on Arab's views towards womens rights. In the seven countries surveyed, about half of the people were seriously concerned with improving Women's rights - with a high of 70% in Saudi Arabia.

I'm not arguing that the Iraq war is responsible for creating anti-Westernism among Islamic states but it certainly has caused a significant increase. I also believe that many people in the Arab world see reform as the adoption of values associated with the west, e.g. democracy, toleration etc, thus when an enormous wave of anti-western sentiment sweeps through a country, the case for reform is damaged. Whilst I believe that values such as freedom and democracy are universal I think that the majority of Arabs see them as inseparable from the west.

I also disagree that many Arab nations are not making steps towards democracy, Syria for example in the last few years has taken considerable steps forward on the issue of human rights, has released over 600 political prisoners and seems to be taken a slightly more relaxed attitude to rival political parties and independent newspapers. It has also enacted economic reforms and encouraged privatisation and foreign investment.

I think that across the Middle East there is a good deal of clamour for reform, the problem is that many regimes that exist in that region are conservative minded and reactionary, in time this will change as pressures increase but as for now they will only enact reforms gradually in order to ensure that power does not slip away from them.

You argued that an upsurgence in terrorism and Islamic extremism would force these countries to engage the masses and make reforms, I disagree - I think that the chaos and fear which terrorism can cause are incompatible with a liberal, open, tolerant and democratic society but rather than most governments would respond by introducing repressive measures. This is true even in the west where the threat of terrorism is far less - whilst you could argue that Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot act are necessary to protect us, you must agree that they are not a step towards a more free and open society, but rather a step in the other direction.

Iraq Survey Chief: More WMD Found
The head of the U.S. team conducting the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq announced on Thursday that his group has uncovered at least ten more artillery shells filled with banned chemical weapons and is finding new WMD evidence "almost every day."

"We've found ten or twelve Sarin and Mustard rounds," said Charles Duelfer, who replaced David Kay as head of the Iraq survey group earlier this year after Kay concluded that WMDs were unlikely to be found.

Let's see how many different problems there are with this...
1. Ten artillery shells is not a threat to the US
2. These weapons date from the Iran-Iraq war
3. When we were supporting Saddam with intelligence
4. Even though we knew he was using chemical weapons against his own people
5. And trying to blame the Iranians for it
6. Sarin has a shelf life; these weapons have lost almost all their potency
7. These weapons could not have killed as many Americans as the invasion has cost

There's a very large conflation going on which I believe is wrong and dangerous - it's called "WMD". This is a term that replaced "NBC", which stood for "Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons". It's a bad idea to equate the three, because they're really not at the same level of danger.

Chemical weapons were prominently used in WWI, and although they are repugnant and were banned for good reasons. Biological weapons could be extremely serious, but are more likely to be slow-moving and ineffective. Nuclear weapons are in a class by themselves - remember the whole argument that Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program? Except that he hadn't.

Most people expected that Saddam was hiding some chemical weapons - personally, I thought that 95% of his NBC weapons had been destroyed, but that 5% of his chemical weapons were still active, with maybe some anthrax. None of that has proved to be true - all we're seeing are echoes of twenty years ago. Artillery shells buried in the desert and forgotten about.

Having a couple of artillery shells with twenty-year old mustard gas - used in the Great War - does not prove the US case for war. Colin Powell said to the UN (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,863575,00.html):


Before the inspectors were forced to leave Iraq, they concluded that Iraq could have produced 26,000 litres of anthrax. That is three times the amount Iraq had declared. Yet, the Iraqi declaration is silent on this stockpile, which, alone, would be enough to kill several million people.

The regime also admitted that it had manufactured 19,180 litres of a biological agent called botchulinum toxin. UN inspectors later determined that the Iraqis could have produced 38,360 additional litres. However, once again, the Iraqi declaration is silent on these missing supplies.

The Iraqi declaration also says nothing about the uncounted, unaccounted precursors from which Iraq could have produced up to 500 tons of mustard gas, sarin gas and VX nerve gas.

Nor does the declaration address questions that have arisen since the inspectors left in 1998. For example, we know that in the late 1990s, Iraq built mobile biological weapons production units. Yet, the declaration tries to waive this away, mentioning only mobile refrigeration vehicles and food-testing laboratories.

We also know that Iraq has tried to obtain high-strength aluminium tubes which can be used to enrich uranium in centrifuges for a nuclear weapons program. The Iraqi regime is required by resolution 1441 to report those attempts. Iraq, however, has failed to provide adequate information about the procurement and use of these tubes.

Most brazenly of all, the Iraqi declaration denies the existence of any prohibited weapons programs at all.


Oh, I'd forgotten about the aluminum tubes - even at the time, DIA experts said that the tubes were artillery-related, not nuclear related.

Before joining the U.S. team, Duelfer was a U.N. weapons inspector and was among the few who had investigated Saddam's top secret terrorist training camp Salman Pak.

In 2001 he confirmed that elite Fedayeen troops were conducting airplane hijacking drills aboard a parked Boeing 707, dismissing claims from Iraqi officials that what he saw was "counterterrorism training."

"Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter'," Duelfer told the London Observer. "I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq."

Well, this is an interesting giveaway - the Salman Pak story has been discredited by just about everyone (http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/6-19-03/discussion.cgi.56.html). It really shows what a lapdog the Bush administration appointed to replace David Kay, because even a biased partisan like Kay had to admit the foundation for the war - WMDs that were a danger to the US - was false. For someone to adhere to beliefs over facts makes them a proud member of the Bush administration - but also ineffective at dealing with the real world.

There aren't any mobile labs, there weren't terrorist training camps in the area of Iraq under Saddam's control, there weren't WMD programs, there wasn't any uranium from Niger... the foundations for the US case have all fallen away.

BTW, the phrase "just war" refers to a specific set of criteria for war (http://www.elca.org/jle/articles/contemporary_issues/article.perry.david.html), rather than simply whether the speaker feels the war to be justified. If memory serves me right, this is Catholic theology.

I don't see how Iraq has affected these things in other countries.

The struggling reform movement in Iran is basically over for the time being. The US invasions of Iran's eastern and western neighbors put a stop to Rafsanjani's power.

To say that Iraq is responsible for the Anti-Westernism/Anti-Americanism in the Arab World isn't true, the Israel-Palestine situation is. Back in the 1970's we were still the Great Satan and people still hated us. There was no real sign that these countries were going to move to democracy if we had no invaded Iraq.

Remember that up until the 1970s, we supported the Shah of Iran. I'll agree that the Israel/Palestine issue has definitely caused a lot of the ill feeling in the region, and that there was no move toward democracy in many of the countries - including Kuwait. I seem to recall someone talking about democracy there...

There are definitely other causes for anti-westernism, and a few do relate to the 'freedoms' of the west, or the difference in prosperity. But I don't think those reasons trigger active terrorism versus the US the way our actions in the middle east do.

There's a difference between Anti-Americanism and anti-reformism, though. In a recent post-Iraq Arab League summit, the Leader of Tunisia wanted to make democracy an issue on the table. Saudi Arabia's slowly giving power (regional elections), and they're probably the most restrictive of any of the Arab regimes.

I think it remains to be seen whether these efforts will be meaningful in any way. I don't think any actual progress has been made, and the instability inside Saudi Arabia is going to limit how much control the royals are willing to give up.

Iraq of course will be much freer than it used to be. Iraq won't stop reform and democracy, on the other hand, it will bring it faster.

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence; elections in Afghanistan have been delayed, and the situation in Iraq is arguably more unstable. I think the case for Iraq being a beacon for freedom in the middle east is extraordinarily unlikely - you do know that the new sovereign government won't be able to declare martial law or change US basic law, right? Only the occupying power will...

If regimes like those in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan feel threatened by terorrists, they'll slowly change from their old ways - as they are - and try to gain support of the people.

Um, yes. Authoritarian regimes always reply to terrorists by greater openness and democracy. Not ever by crackdowns, repression, and torture. Nope.

The economist just did a lengthy report on Arab's views towards womens rights. In the seven countries surveyed, about half of the people were seriously concerned with improving Women's rights - with a high of 70% in Saudi Arabia.

So, out of curiousity, do you know what Arab country had the best women's rights record? Even had equal pay for equal work, to a slightly greater extent than the US? And do you know what's happened to that track record in the last year or so?

The struggling reform movement in Iran is basically over for the time being. The US invasions of Iran's eastern and western neighbors put a stop to Rafsanjani's power.
Actually, hardliners in Iran put a stop to whatever power the President had - not much at all, really. They likely would have done that with or without the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Khatami didn't have any real power, anyway, as the Supreme Council (I think thats what it is called) could just veto anything they wanted out of the reformist government. The whole thing was a sham.

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence; elections in Afghanistan have been delayed, and the situation in Iraq is arguably more unstable. I think the case for Iraq being a beacon for freedom in the middle east is extraordinarily unlikely - you do know that the new sovereign government won't be able to declare martial law or change US basic law, right? Only the occupying power will...

Thats good. If some crackpot gets elected, he won't be able to change basic things. Once we get a solid constitution and a democratic process going, things will be different.

Um, yes. Authoritarian regimes always reply to terrorists by greater openness and democracy. Not ever by crackdowns, repression, and torture. Nope. [Quote]
Not always but sometimes. How many former Communist states had violent takeovers? Romania is one, Chechnya if you count that. A lot of them didn't. I'm not saying that those things won't happen in the Middle East, but it isn't the only path. There's the carrot and the stick, which is what a lot of countries are fond of.

[quote]So, out of curiousity, do you know what Arab country had the best women's rights record? Even had equal pay for equal work, to a slightly greater extent than the US? And do you know what's happened to that track record in the last year or so?
Iraq. Saddam didn't target only women, he made everyone the target of his sadistic regime.

The struggling reform movement in Iran is basically over for the time being. The US invasions of Iran's eastern and western neighbors put a stop to Rafsanjani's power.
Actually, hardliners in Iran put a stop to whatever power the President had - not much at all, really. They likely would have done that with or without the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Khatami didn't have any real power, anyway, as the Supreme Council (I think thats what it is called) could just veto anything they wanted out of the reformist government. The whole thing was a sham.

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence; elections in Afghanistan have been delayed, and the situation in Iraq is arguably more unstable. I think the case for Iraq being a beacon for freedom in the middle east is extraordinarily unlikely - you do know that the new sovereign government won't be able to declare martial law or change US basic law, right? Only the occupying power will...

Thats good. If some crackpot gets elected, he won't be able to change basic things. Once we get a solid constitution and a democratic process going, things will be different.

Um, yes. Authoritarian regimes always reply to terrorists by greater openness and democracy. Not ever by crackdowns, repression, and torture. Nope. [quote]
Not always but sometimes. How many former Communist states had violent takeovers? Romania is one, Chechnya if you count that. A lot of them didn't. I'm not saying that those things won't happen in the Middle East, but it isn't the only path. There's the carrot and the stick, which is what a lot of countries are fond of.

[quote]So, out of curiousity, do you know what Arab country had the best women's rights record? Even had equal pay for equal work, to a slightly greater extent than the US? And do you know what's happened to that track record in the last year or so?
Iraq. Saddam didn't target only women, he made everyone the target of his sadistic regime.its Bushs fault the hardliners won in Iran. Bush refused to do any outreach to democracy activists in Iran at all

he shouldn't be, i don't think. but that's just opinion off my impression, i'm rather uneducated when it comes to politics.

The struggling reform movement in Iran is basically over for the time being. The US invasions of Iran's eastern and western neighbors put a stop to Rafsanjani's power.
Actually, hardliners in Iran put a stop to whatever power the President had - not much at all, really. They likely would have done that with or without the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Khatami didn't have any real power, anyway, as the Supreme Council (I think thats what it is called) could just veto anything they wanted out of the reformist government. The whole thing was a sham.

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence; elections in Afghanistan have been delayed, and the situation in Iraq is arguably more unstable. I think the case for Iraq being a beacon for freedom in the middle east is extraordinarily unlikely - you do know that the new sovereign government won't be able to declare martial law or change US basic law, right? Only the occupying power will...

Thats good. If some crackpot gets elected, he won't be able to change basic things. Once we get a solid constitution and a democratic process going, things will be different.

Um, yes. Authoritarian regimes always reply to terrorists by greater openness and democracy. Not ever by crackdowns, repression, and torture. Nope. [quote]
Not always but sometimes. How many former Communist states had violent takeovers? Romania is one, Chechnya if you count that. A lot of them didn't. I'm not saying that those things won't happen in the Middle East, but it isn't the only path. There's the carrot and the stick, which is what a lot of countries are fond of.

[quote]So, out of curiousity, do you know what Arab country had the best women's rights record? Even had equal pay for equal work, to a slightly greater extent than the US? And do you know what's happened to that track record in the last year or so?
Iraq. Saddam didn't target only women, he made everyone the target of his sadistic regime.its Bushs fault the hardliners won in Iran. Bush refused to do any outreach to democracy activists in Iran at all

Another Blame Bush for everything post! The hardliners have been incontrol since the SEVENTIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well I like bush for the most part I just don't like were he stand on the whole gay marraige thing but that isn't a big deal for me. Did you know in a museum somewhere in veitnam kerry is in their hall of fame becuase he HELP the enemy win by demoralizing the folks back at home. Kerry has voted repeatedly against weapon systems we use in our current conflicts and wants to raise gas prices even though they are quite high already.(I hope they lower in a year or 2 when I get my own car) Kerry keeps saying we need to let the UN deal with Iraq when

1)Those in charge or dealing with the oil for food program were being bribed

2)The UN has no desire to go back to Iraq becuase they always run away when under enemy fire.

3)Alot of people in the UN doesn't Like us any way

Kerry voted for the war but voted againts paying for it and does not care what happens to the Iraq people if we do pull out. He would sytematicly bring our military to its knees like clinton did. President Bush I can tell were he stand. He stands by his guns most the time. Though he has screwed up a few times he is still a pritty good president who makes use of our current position as The super power of the world. All kerry has done is drag president bush through the mudd complain about whats wrong but not how to fix it. :?

The struggling reform movement in Iran is basically over for the time being. The US invasions of Iran's eastern and western neighbors put a stop to Rafsanjani's power.
Actually, hardliners in Iran put a stop to whatever power the President had - not much at all, really. They likely would have done that with or without the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Khatami didn't have any real power, anyway, as the Supreme Council (I think thats what it is called) could just veto anything they wanted out of the reformist government. The whole thing was a sham.

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence; elections in Afghanistan have been delayed, and the situation in Iraq is arguably more unstable. I think the case for Iraq being a beacon for freedom in the middle east is extraordinarily unlikely - you do know that the new sovereign government won't be able to declare martial law or change US basic law, right? Only the occupying power will...

Thats good. If some crackpot gets elected, he won't be able to change basic things. Once we get a solid constitution and a democratic process going, things will be different.

Um, yes. Authoritarian regimes always reply to terrorists by greater openness and democracy. Not ever by crackdowns, repression, and torture. Nope. [quote]
Not always but sometimes. How many former Communist states had violent takeovers? Romania is one, Chechnya if you count that. A lot of them didn't. I'm not saying that those things won't happen in the Middle East, but it isn't the only path. There's the carrot and the stick, which is what a lot of countries are fond of.

[quote]So, out of curiousity, do you know what Arab country had the best women's rights record? Even had equal pay for equal work, to a slightly greater extent than the US? And do you know what's happened to that track record in the last year or so?
Iraq. Saddam didn't target only women, he made everyone the target of his sadistic regime.its Bushs fault the hardliners won in Iran. Bush refused to do any outreach to democracy activists in Iran at all

Another Blame Bush for everything post! The hardliners have been incontrol since the SEVENTIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And no! He never refused outreach to democracy activists. We're doing all we can in that hard pressed nation!

Bringing freedom and democracy to the world is a good thing and a goal which the west must work towards, for its own self interest as much as the interest of others. Invading Iraq however, has not done this.
I don't see how Iraq has affected these things in other countries. To say that Iraq is responsible for the Anti-Westernism/Anti-Americanism in the Arab World isn't true, the Israel-Palestine situation is. Back in the 1970's we were still the Great Satan and people still hated us. There was no real sign that these countries were going to move to democracy if we had no invaded Iraq.

There's a difference between Anti-Americanism and anti-reformism, though. In a recent post-Iraq Arab League summit, the Leader of Tunisia wanted to make democracy an issue on the table. Saudi Arabia's slowly giving power (regional elections), and they're probably the most restrictive of any of the Arab regimes. Iraq of course will be much freer than it used to be. Iraq won't stop reform and democracy, on the other hand, it will bring it faster. If regimes like those in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan feel threatened by terorrists, they'll slowly change from their old ways - as they are - and try to gain support of the people. The economist just did a lengthy report on Arab's views towards womens rights. In the seven countries surveyed, about half of the people were seriously concerned with improving Women's rights - with a high of 70% in Saudi Arabia.
All this talk about bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to Iraq is hogwash. First, that was NOT the stated goal of the invasion, or did you forget that Bush was acting in the name of the "War on Terrorism"? Bush stated that Iraq was a "threat" to the US, and had WMD, and was allied with Al-Queda.

Having found NO WMD, and NO connections to Al-Queda, it has become the convenient excuse that the Coalition was there to "liberate" Iraq. Oh and to help out in this "liberation", the US has conveniently installed a "puppet" government that must follow "Bremer's Orders". Oh, and how kind of the US to "liberate" Iraq, while taking control of most Iraqi businesses, with up to 100% control of same by foreigners.

Have you stopped to think that the Iraqi people do NOT want US style "democracy"? Last polls I saw, was overwhelmingly in favour of the US going home as soon as possible.

Have you stopped to think that the Iraqi people do NOT want "sex, drugs, and rock and roll", nor do they want YOUR religion?

Have you stopped to think that you have proved to the Iraqi people that you are indeed "infidels" by dropping bombs on them, and by torturing them?

Have you stopped to think that the Iraqi people do NOT want the US there and are willing to commit suicide to deter your presence? This kind of stuff has been going on in Israel for how long? when will this hatred stop?

Is it a question of how long will it take for these people to get the message, or is it a question of how long will it take for us to get the message?

It is also hard for me to believe that the US has compassion for these people, considering the US has its' own domestic problems. I have often seen it stated (right here on these threads) a lack of compassion for the people living in poverty in the US, and yet your government will spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to "liberate" some poor Iraqi? Give me a break!!

Well I like bush for the most part I just don't like were he stand on the whole gay marraige thing but that isn't a big deal for me. Did you know in a museum somewhere in veitnam kerry is in their hall of fame becuase he HELP the enemy win by demoralizing the folks back at home. Kerry has voted repeatedly against weapon systems we use in our current conflicts and wants to raise gas prices even though they are quite high already.(I hope they lower in a year or 2 when I get my own car) Kerry keeps saying we need to let the UN deal with Iraq when

1)Those in charge or dealing with the oil for food program were being bribed

2)The UN has no desire to go back to Iraq becuase they always run away when under enemy fire.

3)Alot of people in the UN doesn't Like us any way

Kerry voted for the war but voted againts paying for it and does not care what happens to the Iraq people if we do pull out. He would sytematicly bring our military to its knees like clinton did. President Bush I can tell were he stand. He stands by his guns most the time. Though he has screwed up a few times he is still a pritty good president who makes use of our current position as The super power of the world. All kerry has done is drag president bush through the mudd complain about whats wrong but not how to fix it. :?

Bringing freedom and democracy to the world is a good thing and a goal which the west must work towards, for its own self interest as much as the interest of others. Invading Iraq however, has not done this.
I don't see how Iraq has affected these things in other countries. To say that Iraq is responsible for the Anti-Westernism/Anti-Americanism in the Arab World isn't true, the Israel-Palestine situation is. Back in the 1970's we were still the Great Satan and people still hated us. There was no real sign that these countries were going to move to democracy if we had no invaded Iraq.

There's a difference between Anti-Americanism and anti-reformism, though. In a recent post-Iraq Arab League summit, the Leader of Tunisia wanted to make democracy an issue on the table. Saudi Arabia's slowly giving power (regional elections), and they're probably the most restrictive of any of the Arab regimes. Iraq of course will be much freer than it used to be. Iraq won't stop reform and democracy, on the other hand, it will bring it faster. If regimes like those in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan feel threatened by terorrists, they'll slowly change from their old ways - as they are - and try to gain support of the people. The economist just did a lengthy report on Arab's views towards womens rights. In the seven countries surveyed, about half of the people were seriously concerned with improving Women's rights - with a high of 70% in Saudi Arabia.
All this talk about bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to Iraq is hogwash. First, that was NOT the stated goal of the invasion, or did you forget that Bush was acting in the name of the "War on Terrorism"? Bush stated that Iraq was a "threat" to the US, and had WMD, and was allied with Al-Queda.

Having found NO WMD, and NO connections to Al-Queda, it has become the convenient excuse that the Coalition was there to "liberate" Iraq. Oh and to help out in this "liberation", the US has conveniently installed a "puppet" government that must follow "Bremer's Orders". Oh, and how kind of the US to "liberate" Iraq, while taking control of most Iraqi businesses, with up to 100% control of same by foreigners.

Have you stopped to think that the Iraqi people do NOT want US style "democracy"? Last polls I saw, was overwhelmingly in favour of the US going home as soon as possible.

Have you stopped to think that the Iraqi people do NOT want "sex, drugs, and rock and roll", nor do they want YOUR religion?

Have you stopped to think that you have proved to the Iraqi people that you are indeed "infidels" by dropping bombs on them, and by torturing them?

Have you stopped to think that the Iraqi people do NOT want the US there and are willing to commit suicide to deter your presence? This kind of stuff has been going on in Israel for how long? when will this hatred stop?

Is it a question of how long will it take for these people to get the message, or is it a question of how long will it take for us to get the message?

It is also hard for me to believe that the US has compassion for these people, considering the US has its' own domestic problems. I have often seen it stated (right here on these threads) a lack of compassion for the people living in poverty in the US, and yet your government will spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to "liberate" some poor Iraqi? Give me a break!!

Actually there has been proof that saddam horbared terrosits he used them in the Invasion. Iraq was just some third world country Its military power was 3rd in the world and we rolled over them in a month. Dont say america is just picking on the weak countries when you look at the stats. :?

Bush didnt want democracy activists to succeed in Iran--Bush was glad the hardliners won cause now he can have an excuse to invade Iran next

Bush didnt want democracy activists to succeed in Iran--Bush was glad the hardliners won cause now he can have an excuse to invade Iran next

I like to see proof of this MKULTRA because what you said is totally false!

The hardliners KEPT THE REFORMISTS off the ballot! Bush had nothing to do with it

Bush didnt want democracy activists to succeed in Iran--Bush was glad the hardliners won cause now he can have an excuse to invade Iran next

Na next is north Korea THEN maby Iran.

Bush didnt want democracy activists to succeed in Iran--Bush was glad the hardliners won cause now he can have an excuse to invade Iran next

Na next is north Korea THEN maby Iran.

lol yea! NK will be easier than Iran!

Bush didnt want democracy activists to succeed in Iran--Bush was glad the hardliners won cause now he can have an excuse to invade Iran next

Na next is north Korea THEN maby Iran.

lol yea! NK will be easier than Iran!

Bush didnt want democracy activists to succeed in Iran--Bush was glad the hardliners won cause now he can have an excuse to invade Iran next

I like to see proof of this MKULTRA because what you said is totally false!

The hardliners KEPT THE REFORMISTS off the ballot! Bush had nothing to do with itif you dont think Bush is daily looking for excuses to invade more countries then your violently naieve

Reynes, oh Reynes......this thread is calling your name!!!Alas, I have returned!

Okay... where to start... why Bush it better, or why Kerry is worse?

Bush
Abortion: He's pro-life, I'm pro-life. I'm pro-life because I believe murder is wrong, and since proponents of abortion can't prove that a fetus isn't human, the fetus is human, killing of a human is murder, hence, abortion is murder.

Alliances: Thanks to him, we don't have the best foreign relations. Tough. We didn't have good relations with France in WWII, either. I watch History Channel. The french PM wasn't exactly thrilled when they heard they couldn't participate in the Normandy invasion. At least Bush isn't afraid of stepping on these people's toes to get the job done. During the Clinton era, we thumbed our nose at the UN to go into Yugoslavia, but the left doesn't seem to care about that.

Deficit: I acknowledge the deficit, and I know it can and will be paid off in time. Pro-Clinton people flaunt the Clinton surplus, but all that means is that the gov't was bringing in more money than it was spending. The reason Clinton was able to do that was because he decapitated the military after the end of the cold war, choosing to believe that war was a thing of the past. 9-11 proved him wrong. I don't hold Clinton responsible for the first WTC bombing, you need over a year to make significant changes to intelligence, but I do hold him responsible for the second.

Economy: Bush is for supply-side economics. The left can deny it all they want, but it worked. Reagan did the same thing and, out of stagflation, he brought inflation down 14% and created 19.5 million jobs with this policy. The left says it didn't work, but they don't explain why all this happened. Bush is doing the same thing, and we're seeing the same results. Like it or not, we are seeing the fastest job growth in the last twenty years. People blame the recession on Bush, but you have to factor in NAFTA (Clinton admin.), 9-11, the CEO scandals (started long before Bush), etc. Those have long-term effects that we are just now starting to come out of.

Iraq: I think that we are seeing more and more evidence of an Iraq-AQ connection daily. We are finding more and more WMDs, and we are finding evidence that Saddam and OBL go back a long way, also that Saddam trained and funded AQ. Besides, Saddam was a tyrannical dictator who killed well over a million of his own people. Face it, there was a connection. W was right.

Patriot act: I have nothing against this. It has effected my life in no way, there have been no terror attacks in this country since the Washington sniper, and the widespread civil rights crisis the left has been shouting about for so long has not come to pass.

Character: I think Bush is more open and honest. What you see is what you get. You may think we wears his religion on his sleeve, but at least he is honest about his religion.

Kerry
Deficit: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=155831&highlight=

Economy: I think that he would follow a similar stance as Clinton: sit back, relax, and let the good times roll. The thing about the American people is that we have a short memory span. Clinton inherited the growing economy from Bush, who inherited it from Reagan. It happened to peak under Clinton, of course, so he got credit for it.

Foreign Policy: I think he pretty much dodges this issue. He basically says that he would let the UN dictate everything he did, and that's almost as weak as Clinton's poll-driven stance.

Flipflops: I am aware of Bush's flipflop on nation-building, but something on the scale of 9-11 tends to change things. We should have set up an infrastructure in Afghanistan after their war with Russia was over, but we didn't. The taliban took over, and then ten years later it came back to bite us in the ass. bump. I think that Kerry is too fluid (gelatinous?) on most of the issues.
>First he voted for the patriot act. Then he complained about it. Now he supports his vote and wants to strenghten parts.
>First he voted for the war in Iraq. Then he voted against increased funding (I am aware Cheney did, too, but keep in mind Cheney isn't Bush). Now he complains about the way things are going over there.
Plus, I think he tends to dodge some key things. Remember?
Are you a republican? DID YOU VOTE FOR GEORGE W. BUSH?The man had him beaten. He dodged the question.

Character: what character? He says whatever the public wants to hear in order to get ahead, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff. I'm not entirely sure of his piety. He contradicts much of his own faith. He may be one of those people who acts it to get some of the very large voting bloc of Christians, but I'm not entirely sure. At least with Bush I know where he stands. Kerry is too vague for my tastes.

IN CONCLUSION
The first time I vote, I'm going to vote for Bush.

Bush didnt want democracy activists to succeed in Iran--Bush was glad the hardliners won cause now he can have an excuse to invade Iran next

I like to see proof of this MKULTRA because what you said is totally false!

The hardliners KEPT THE REFORMISTS off the ballot! Bush had nothing to do with itif you dont think Bush is daily looking for excuses to invade more countries then your violently naieve

HELLO! I"m being Naieve?

I'm not the one throwing allegations out, you are and you have no proof backing it up. That is being Naieve.

I've read how the hardliners came to power. Bush had nothing to do with it. He wants democracy in Iran but I have a feeling the Iranian People will do it themselves with help from the free world.

Bush didnt want democracy activists to succeed in Iran--Bush was glad the hardliners won cause now he can have an excuse to invade Iran next

Na next is north Korea THEN maby Iran.

lol yea! NK will be easier than Iran!no way--NK is protected by China

Bush didnt want democracy activists to succeed in Iran--Bush was glad the hardliners won cause now he can have an excuse to invade Iran next

Na next is north Korea THEN maby Iran.

lol yea! NK will be easier than Iran!no way--NK is protected by China

China is threatened by NK! China doesn't like NK! China won't support NK in another war if it ever occurs!

He can't be RE-elected...he was never elected in the first place, he was SELECTED by five Supremes.

"I think we're going about this War on Terror all the wrong wy. We need to look for some common ground. We could just tell the terrorists, hey...we got a lot in common...you're religious lunatics...WE'RE religious lunatics!! How 'bout them Salem witch trials?? Come to America, guys, you could be Osama bin Ashcroft!!" - P. J. O'Rourke

Dragoneia, a large number of things you said are not accurate.

Did you know in a museum somewhere in veitnam kerry is in their hall of fame becuase he HELP the enemy win by demoralizing the folks back at home.

So Kerry helped the enemy by winning three medals, while Bush hurt them by staying home, getting drunk, and skipping out on national guard obligations? (Actually, you may have a point that Bush helped the US military by not showing up.) South Vietnam did not fall because of the Tinkerbell effect - i.e., Kerry didn't clap hard enough, so we lost.

If you remember - which you don't, because this isn't the way history teaches it - the US fought North Vietnam to a draw. Then we left, and there were two years of peace. Then Nixon said that defending Vietnam was not something we were interested in, and South Vietnam fell within months.

Kerry has voted repeatedly against weapon systems we use in our current conflicts and wants to raise gas prices even though they are quite high already.(I hope they lower in a year or 2 when I get my own car)

Okay, now you're repeating Bush campaign commercials - which are extraordinarily inaccurate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A44973-2004Apr26&notFound=true). Kerry voted against omnibus military spending bills - as did McCain - because of the pork they included. On votes for particular weapons systems, he has voted for many programs which then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney wanted to remove.

Kerry has not advocated any rise in gasoline prices; there's no clear evidence he ever endorsed the decades-old proposal to increase the gax tax. Both Dick Cheney and George Bush have spoken out against cheap oil, and Cheney specifically advocated raising the gasoline tax.

(Also, gas prices in the US are lower than in almost any other western indusrialized country. I'd like to see gas taxes pay for US military deployment to the mideast...)

Kerry keeps saying we need to let the UN deal with Iraq when

1)Those in charge or dealing with the oil for food program were being bribed

This is an allegation made by Chalabi's crew; the evidence has not yet been released. I would think the US had learned not to trust Chalabi's assertions at this time. (There does appear to have been some bribery; there appears to be some bribery and corruption in the current Iraqi reconstruction, including using the US military to escort empty trucks - which the government then paid for. What a pity that the Republican Congress refused to ban war profiteering...)

2)The UN has no desire to go back to Iraq becuase they always run away when under enemy fire.

UN peacekeepers are set up to deal with two roughly equal sides that have both decided to end conflict. They aren't well set up to deal with anything else, and this has been made clear in the past. NATO is much better suited to dealing with asymmetric conflicts and pacification; it's a pity that NATO is wrapped up in Afghanistan (and even then not doing as much as needs to be done.)

The UN, however, has a lot of experience at rebuilding failed countries - and I think it's pretty clear that the US and the CPA have failed miserably. (80% of reconstruction funds have yet to be spent, and much of the spent funds have vanished from corruption.)

3)Alot of people in the UN doesn't Like us any way

And why do you think that is?

Kerry voted for the war but voted againts paying for it and does not care what happens to the Iraq people if we do pull out.

Untrue; Kerry voted for paying for the war by rolling back Bush's tax cuts. What other time have taxes fallen during wartime? Kerry voted against paying fot the war in Iraq by running up the nation's credit card. Kerry is not talking about pulling out of Iraq; only Dennis Kucinich is. Kerry is talking about actually working with allies rather than treating them like the Warsaw Pact.

The vote for the war was a mistake, but the mistake was to trust George Bush. BTW, that vote authorized action versus countries associated with 9/11 - do you think that Iraq qualified?

]quote] He would sytematicly bring our military to its knees like clinton did.[/quote]

Um, no. The drawing down and privatization of the military after the cold war was started by Bush I and Dick Cheney (as Secretary of Defense). Clinton's use of the military pales in comparison to the generation damage that Bush II has inflicted on the volunteer army, the reserves, and the national guard.

President Bush I can tell were he stand. He stands by his guns most the time.

Wow, it's amazing how inaccurate that is. Bush is incredibly dishonest on every level. He claims to be religious, but he doesn't belong to a church. He bought a "ranch' in Crawford just before the election, but he lives there in a modern house, and doesn't know how to ride horses. He went to Andover, Harvard, and Yale, but attacks the 'elites' of this country.

Whenever there's a Bush photo-op at a social program, you can tell he's doing to cut funding. During elections, he takes credit for bills he opposed or even vetoed but were passed over him. His administration has had so many 180 degree flip flops that I've gotten dizzy. (Remember Jay Garner, the first proconsul of Iraq? Remember what we were going to do to Al-Sadr?)

All kerry has done is drag president bush through the mudd complain about whats wrong but not how to fix it. :?

I think if you actually check out John Kerry's web site, you'll see position papers and plans. If you check out the Bush web site, you'll see a lot of anti-Kerry rhetoric and photo-ops.

He can't be RE-elected...he was never elected in the first place, he was SELECTED by five Supremes.

"I think we're going about this War on Terror all the wrong wy. We need to look for some common ground. We could just tell the terrorists, hey...we got a lot in common...you're religious lunatics...WE'RE religious lunatics!! How 'bout them Salem witch trials?? Come to America, guys, you could be Osama bin Ashcroft!!" - P. J. O'Rourke

HE WAS ELECTED Labrador. The Constitution was CLEAR and the SUPREME COURT RULED AS SUCH!!!! THEY UPHELD THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!

He can't be RE-elected...he was never elected in the first place, he was SELECTED by five Supremes.

"I think we're going about this War on Terror all the wrong wy. We need to look for some common ground. We could just tell the terrorists, hey...we got a lot in common...you're religious lunatics...WE'RE religious lunatics!! How 'bout them Salem witch trials?? Come to America, guys, you could be Osama bin Ashcroft!!" - P. J. O'Rourke

HE WAS ELECTED Labrador. The Constitution was CLEAR and the SUPREME COURT RULED AS SUCH!!!! THEY UPHELD THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!No they didnt-- and Clarence Thomas shouldve have recused himself from the case as well

He can't be RE-elected...he was never elected in the first place, he was SELECTED by five Supremes.

"I think we're going about this War on Terror all the wrong wy. We need to look for some common ground. We could just tell the terrorists, hey...we got a lot in common...you're religious lunatics...WE'RE religious lunatics!! How 'bout them Salem witch trials?? Come to America, guys, you could be Osama bin Ashcroft!!" - P. J. O'RourkeOkay, then let's talk about how both sides tried to spin the election.

The Dems tried to:
>disregard the traditionally conservative absentee ballots of our servicemen
>buy votes for Gore from the poor (yes, they existed under Clinton) by handing out cigarettes
>have college students (traditionally liberal) vote three, four times
>took us through umphteen recounts of the Florida votes, what with dimpled chads, hanging chads, pregnant chads...
>tried to spin the recounts by
poking and prodding the ballots in a suspicious manner(I'll look for a direct link)

Then there were hundreds of people complaining that they couldn't vote, despite the fact that they had already voted.

Then there was somebody in Louisiana who wasn't able to vote because they were only 17, which is pretty old for a German shepard, but still underage.

Oh, the right-wing oppression!
:roll:

Formal Dances it right, Labrador. Gore lost. GET OVER IT.

Do your worst.

He can't be RE-elected...he was never elected in the first place, he was SELECTED by five Supremes.

"I think we're going about this War on Terror all the wrong wy. We need to look for some common ground. We could just tell the terrorists, hey...we got a lot in common...you're religious lunatics...WE'RE religious lunatics!! How 'bout them Salem witch trials?? Come to America, guys, you could be Osama bin Ashcroft!!" - P. J. O'Rourke

HE WAS ELECTED Labrador. The Constitution was CLEAR and the SUPREME COURT RULED AS SUCH!!!! THEY UPHELD THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!No they didnt-- and Clarence Thomas shouldve have recused himself from the case as well

You want all judges to recuse themselves! If he did, the house would've voted and Bush Still would've been in the White House!

He can't be RE-elected...he was never elected in the first place, he was SELECTED by five Supremes.

"I think we're going about this War on Terror all the wrong wy. We need to look for some common ground. We could just tell the terrorists, hey...we got a lot in common...you're religious lunatics...WE'RE religious lunatics!! How 'bout them Salem witch trials?? Come to America, guys, you could be Osama bin Ashcroft!!" - P. J. O'Rourke

HE WAS ELECTED Labrador. The Constitution was CLEAR and the SUPREME COURT RULED AS SUCH!!!! THEY UPHELD THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!No they didnt-- and Clarence Thomas shouldve have recused himself from the case as well

As should Sandra Day O'Connor...since she was quoted by Newsweek as having said, when Florida was originally called for Gore..."Damn it, now I have to wait four more years to retire...I don't want my replacement nominated by a Democrat!"

If Claernce Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor had recused themselves as they Constitutionally should have, for their open expressions of bias before the case...then the vote woulda been 4-3 in favor of Gore, with two recusals.

ok, I am outta this post before I blow up again..I cannot stand certain people, and they have decided to suddeenly stick their oar in...I'm not gonna get flamebaited again...

He can't be RE-elected...he was never elected in the first place, he was SELECTED by five Supremes.

"I think we're going about this War on Terror all the wrong wy. We need to look for some common ground. We could just tell the terrorists, hey...we got a lot in common...you're religious lunatics...WE'RE religious lunatics!! How 'bout them Salem witch trials?? Come to America, guys, you could be Osama bin Ashcroft!!" - P. J. O'Rourke

HE WAS ELECTED Labrador. The Constitution was CLEAR and the SUPREME COURT RULED AS SUCH!!!! THEY UPHELD THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!No they didnt-- and Clarence Thomas shouldve have recused himself from the case as well

As should Sandra Day O'Connor...since she was quoted by Newsweek as having said, when Florida was originally called for Gore..."Damn it, now I have to wait four more years to retire...I don't want my replacement nominated by a Democrat!"

If Claernce Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor had recused themselves as they Constitutionally should have, for their open expressions of bias before the case...then the vote woulda been 4-3 in favor of Gore, with two recusals.

Then the recounts would've continued and the election in Florida would be tossed out and it still would've gone to the House and Bush would've won the house vote!

ok, I am outta this post before I blow up again..I cannot stand certain people, and they have decided to suddeenly stick their oar in...I'm not gonna get flamebaited again...Lab try smoking marijuana --itll calme your nerves

How long are we going to have to listen to the harboring terrorists stuff? Its a total sham.

While there's great debate on whether Saddam harbored terrorists, there's little debate on whether he supported them.

Unless of course you think Saddam's payment of about 10k to the families of suicide bombers isn't supporting terror.

All this talk about bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to Iraq is hogwash. First, that was NOT the stated goal of the invasion, or did you forget that Bush was acting in the name of the "War on Terrorism"? Bush stated that Iraq was a "threat" to the US, and had WMD, and was allied with Al-Queda.
So? We all know the main reason was WMD. Bush outlined twelve, I think, reasons in his speech to the UN. Most of them were about how horrible Saddam was. Just because what the stated / media blown up reason was dosen't mean that thats the only thing that comes out of the war.

Actually there has been proof that saddam horbared terrosits he used them in the Invasion. Iraq was just some third world country Its military power was 3rd in the world and we rolled over them in a month. Dont say america is just picking on the weak countries when you look at the stats. :?
Iraq had the 3rd largest military power in the world???????

No sense debating this with you because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about?

Don't be stupid, George Bush is only intereted in his money and his wealthy friends. He lies, he kills, he steals, he manipulates, USA is the only country where people like Bush can be re-elected. in any other country of the world he would be at 10% of support or something like that. Looked what happened in Spain. Please don't be naive, you are being manipulated and used. Where is the wealth? Why doesn't he fix the homelessness? Why don't he educate? Why he spends billions in war to get the oil when there is millions starving in USA and the world.

Stop watching hollywood movies and start thinking and questioning.

Actually there has been proof that saddam horbared terrosits he used them in the Invasion. Iraq was just some third world country Its military power was 3rd in the world and we rolled over them in a month. Dont say america is just picking on the weak countries when you look at the stats. :?
Iraq had the 3rd largest military power in the world???????

No sense debating this with you because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about?true--Iraq was 100% disarmed and utterly helpless--its one of the reason why Bush attacked them-they were a literal sitting duck

Bush
Abortion: He's pro-life, I'm pro-life. I'm pro-life because I believe murder is wrong, and since proponents of abortion can't prove that a fetus isn't human, the fetus is human, killing of a human is murder, hence, abortion is murder.

So what's capital punishment, particularly of innocent people? How about dropping JDAMs on restaurants?

I see you're a believer that God is the ultimate abortionist. Do you have any idea how many fertilized embryos fail to come to term?


Deficit: I acknowledge the deficit, and I know it can and will be paid off in time. Pro-Clinton people flaunt the Clinton surplus, but all that means is that the gov't was bringing in more money than it was spending.

Truly, you are a master in economics. Do you recall the alterations in the tax rate which Uncle Newt said would cause the government to collapse?

The reason Clinton was able to do that was because he decapitated the military after the end of the cold war, choosing to believe that war was a thing of the past.

Oh, please. For the last time, people, the drawdown of the military was started by the same people who abandoned Afghanistan - Bush I and Cheney.

9-11 proved him wrong.

What, precisely, does this have to do with the drawdown in military spending after the cold war? (BTW, we're now about 50% of the world spending on the military.)

I don't hold Clinton responsible for the first WTC bombing, you need over a year to make significant changes to intelligence, but I do hold him responsible for the second.

But you do give him credit for stopping the millenium bombing, right? (And, incidentally, I think there's enough blame to go around, but to pretend that Bush's month-long vacation, dismissal of Gramm-Rudman, and appointment of Ashcroft had nothing to do with 9/11 is foolish.)

Economy: Bush is for supply-side economics. The left can deny it all they want, but it worked.

This is utter and complete horse puckey. Supply-side economics does not work (http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/TaxCutCon.html). Reagan massively increased taxes after his initial cut - because supply-side economics doesn't work - and still ended up with a massive deficit.

Inflation was stopped by Paul Volker reining in the money supply, not by anything Reagan did. If you don't think there are alternate, credible, and more widely accepted explanations, you simply aren't paying attention.

Bush is doing the same thing, and we're seeing the same results. Like it or not, we are seeing the fastest job growth in the last twenty years.

Yes, we are seeing the same results - economic failure, massive deficits, and income inequality. Bush is on track to be the first president since Hoover to preside over a net decline in jobs - when the number of people entering the workforce continues to increase. We've had a couple of good job growth months, but the overall trend is still pretty bad, and the jobs that are getting created aren't as good as the ones that were lost.

People blame the recession on Bush, but you have to factor in NAFTA (Clinton admin.), 9-11, the CEO scandals (started long before Bush), etc. Those have long-term effects that we are just now starting to come out of.

Then why have the Bush administration failed to live up to a single one of their economic predictions? The recession was triggered by Bush's bashing of the economy during the election - although there was certainly a bubble that was going to pop. The corporate abuses of the 1990s went to a fever pitch in 2001 and 2002, because they knew Bush wasn't going to punish them. (Compare how much MCI and Enron lied in 1999 with how much they lied in 2001.)

Iraq: I think that we are seeing more and more evidence of an Iraq-AQ connection daily.

Only in your dreams, and in Clintonesque twisting. There were connections between Reagan and the Soviet Union - what does that prove?

We're finding Iran-Iraq war shells, almost completely rotted out and of no significant threat to the US.

we are finding evidence [...] that Saddam trained and funded AQ.

Here, you are either lying or criminally ignorant. Produce a citation or hang your head in shame. (And yes, Saddam and Al-Qaeda have old connections - he's been refusing to work with them for years, and Bin Laden funded anti-Saddam guerillas after GWI.)

Those who are not ignorant of history know that OBL's real anger at the US started when the US deployed to Saudi Arabia, when OBL felt the muj from Afghanistan could return and protect it without western help. (Incidentally, the threatened invasion of Saudi Arabia is apparently yet another Dick Cheney falsehood.)

Besides, Saddam was a tyrannical dictator who killed well over a million of his own people.

Almost all of which while we were allied with him, or after Bush I encouraged the Iraqis to revolt and then abandoned them. The rest of the world, including the Shi'ites, remember hits.

Face it, there was a connection. W was right.

Ahem. (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/01/bushiraq021101)

"You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein when you talk about the war on terror"

The question is not whether there were connections or conversations. The question is whether there was a collaborative relationship, and every piece of evidence to support this has been debunked.

Patriot act: I have nothing against this. It has effected my life in no way, there have been no terror attacks in this country since the Washington sniper, and the widespread civil rights crisis the left has been shouting about for so long has not come to pass.

That's pretty impressive, especially considering that complaints against the patriot act are required to be secret. The ACLU is forbidden from discussing their lawsuit about patriot act abuses - you did know that, right?

(And, btw, thanks for not claiming there had been no terrorism on US soil since 9/11.)

Character: I think Bush is more open and honest. What you see is what you get. You may think we wears his religion on his sleeve, but at least he is honest about his religion.

If you think that Bush is open and honest, you are deluding yourself. If he's a methodist, why doesn't he belong to a church? If he's participating in bible studies, why do other members of those groups think that Acts is one of the gospels? If Bush is open and honest, [url=http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/politics/politics-aids-scientists.html]why is his administration placing limits on scientists speaking to the WHO?p/url]

I've debunked my quota of Kerry-bashing for the day, someone else can take that on.

Why don't he educate?
We spend the most on education in the Industrialized and Bush increased that amount.

Why don't he educate?
We spend the most on education in the Industrialized and Bush increased that amount.air america said that Bush leaves every child behind

Yes, we are seeing the same results - economic failure

Don't know where you're seeing this, the American economy is in a recovery.

Yes, we are seeing the same results - economic failure, massive deficits, and income inequality. Bush is on track to be the first president since Hoover to preside over a net decline in jobs - when the number of people entering the workforce continues to increase. We've had a couple of good job growth months, but the overall trend is still pretty bad, and the jobs that are getting created aren't as good as the ones that were lost.
No, at the current rate (about 1,000,000 per 3 months) there would be a surplus by January, and more than Clinton by the end of his second term.

Yes, we are seeing the same results - economic failure

Don't know where you're seeing this, the American economy is in a recovery.not for the people who matter

[quote=Roania]Because Bush, believe it or not, is actually a decent president. Certainly better than Gore would have been, and Kerry is evil.

Bush=Amiable person.

Kerry=Evil incarnate.


Statistically and literally...Bush is a failing President.
Numbers dont lie.

What do you have to say about that?
I say amen

Yes, we are seeing the same results - economic failure

Don't know where you're seeing this, the American economy is in a recovery.not for the people who matter

Everyone's economy is going up!

Okay, then let's talk about how both sides tried to spin the election.

Sure; the Bush campaign spent more on their travel budget than the Gore Campaign spent on the recall effort in Florida in toto.

Find some evidence for some of your tired alllegations about democratic vote fraud; I'll raise you ChoicePoint's scrubbing of over a hundred thousand black voters from Florida's rolls (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=55&row=2). It's the truth, it's actual, Florida settled the lawsuit by the NAACP.

if Bush v. Gore - notice who filed the suit - was such a great decision, why didn't it set any precedent? Why was it a 5-4 unsigned decision - can you find any other 5-4 unsigned decisions? (Usually unsigned decisions are unanimous). Read Vincent Bugliosi (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010205&s=bugliosi) - hardly a flaming liberal - on this one. Bugliosi also has very harsh words for David Boies, who loses a lot of high-profile cases for a "great" lawyer.

(FormalDances is right, though, the House would have picked Bush anyway. I guess he couldn't handle the stigma of being the first person in a century to be picked by the House.)

He was elected fraudulent as well, he is ignorant, he is corrupt. Investigate Enron, Carlyle group. Do you know Bin Laden and Bush are friends?? Do you know he actually benefits from war?? He makes millions selling weapons and stealing oil.

Read

He was elected fraudulent as well, he is ignorant, he is corrupt. Investigate Enron, Carlyle group. Do you know Bin Laden and Bush are friends?? Do you know he actually benefits from war?? He makes millions selling weapons and stealing oil.

Read

Prove that Bin laden and Bush are friends. I don't count trying to kill him as a friendly attitude towards Bin Laden! LOL

Prove that Bin laden and Bush are friends. I don't count trying to kill him as a friendly attitude towards Bin Laden! LOL

[edit - removed question; I misunderstood the post].

new: You do remember the transition from "Dead or Alive" to "Bin Laden's not that important", yes?

The Bin Ladens bailed out Arbusto, btw - Bin Ladin's immediate family gave W's company money. That sounds like a "link" to me...

Prove that Bin laden and Bush are friends. I don't count trying to kill him as a friendly attitude towards Bin Laden! LOL

What are you smoking now? When did Bin Laden try to kill Bush?

The Bin Ladens bailed out Arbusto, btw - Bin Ladin's immediate family gave W's company money. That sounds like a "link" to me...

HAHAHA!!!! Bin Laden's family DISOWNED OSAMA!!! Just because the rest of Bin Laden's family gave money doesn't mean they are friends!

He was elected fraudulent as well, he is ignorant, he is corrupt. Investigate Enron, Carlyle group. Do you know Bin Laden and Bush are friends?? Do you know he actually benefits from war?? He makes millions selling weapons and stealing oil.

Read

Prove that Bin laden and Bush are friends. I don't count trying to kill him as a friendly attitude towards Bin Laden! LOLisnt it a chilling coinsidence that Bushs father was meeting with the Bin Ladens on 911 of ALL day? Also that the Bushs were more concerned with the safety of SAUDIS on 911 when america was under direct attack?

Yes, we are seeing the same results - economic failure

Don't know where you're seeing this, the American economy is in a recovery.
Really?

http://www.jobwatch.org/

Bush Administration's tax cuts not fulfilling job creation promises
The Bush Administration called the tax cut package, which was passed in May 2003 and took effect in July 2003, its "Jobs and Growth Plan." The president's economics staff, the Council of Economic Advisers (see background documents), projected that the plan would result in the creation of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004—306,000 new jobs each month, starting in July 2003. The CEA projected that, starting in July 2003, the economy would generate 228,000 jobs a month without a tax cut and 306,000 jobs a month with the tax cut. Thus, it projected that 3,366,000 would be created in the last 11 months. In fact, since the tax cuts took effect, jobs have grown by 1,365,000—two million fewer jobs than the administration projected would be created by enactment of its tax cuts.


http://www.jobwatch.org/ima/20040604_1differenceactproj650.gif

And the real tell tale sign is the unemployment picture:

http://jobsearch.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The unemployment rate has been either 5.6 or 5.7 percent in each month since December 2003.

Yes, we are seeing the same results - economic failure

Don't know where you're seeing this, the American economy is in a recovery.
Really?

http://www.jobwatch.org/

Bush Administration's tax cuts not fulfilling job creation promises
The Bush Administration called the tax cut package, which was passed in May 2003 and took effect in July 2003, its "Jobs and Growth Plan." The president's economics staff, the Council of Economic Advisers (see background documents), projected that the plan would result in the creation of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004—306,000 new jobs each month, starting in July 2003. The CEA projected that, starting in July 2003, the economy would generate 228,000 jobs a month without a tax cut and 306,000 jobs a month with the tax cut. Thus, it projected that 3,366,000 would be created in the last 11 months. In fact, since the tax cuts took effect, jobs have grown by 1,365,000—two million fewer jobs than the administration projected would be created by enactment of its tax cuts.


http://www.jobwatch.org/ima/20040604_1differenceactproj650.gif

And the real tell tale sign is the unemployment picture:

http://jobsearch.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The unemployment rate has been either 5.6 or 5.7 percent in each month since December 2003.

No Idea where your getting your numbers from hun, but job creation numbers were up since August '03! One Million CREATED in a 3 MONTH SPAN! Alot more if you factor in August to March '04 numbers!

BTW, I was wondering how many jobs have been created or are sustained by ongoing US military excursions in Afghanistan and Iraq? It would have to be tens of thousands?

Prove that Bin laden and Bush are friends. I don't count trying to kill him as a friendly attitude towards Bin Laden! LOL

What are you smoking now? When did Bin Laden try to kill Bush?

The Bin Ladens bailed out Arbusto, btw - Bin Ladin's immediate family gave W's company money. That sounds like a "link" to me...

HAHAHA!!!! Bin Laden's family DISOWNED OSAMA!!! Just because the rest of Bin Laden's family gave money doesn't mean they are friends!If they disowned Osama so completely, then why were there members of the family present in Afghanistan in 2001 at Osama's son's wedding? It's one thing to say you've disowned a person and cut off all contact when it's in your business interests to say so--it's another thing to actually do it, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Osama is not as disowned as the Bin Laden family would like everyone to believe.

Yes, we are seeing the same results - economic failure

Don't know where you're seeing this, the American economy is in a recovery.
Really?

http://www.jobwatch.org/

Bush Administration's tax cuts not fulfilling job creation promises
The Bush Administration called the tax cut package, which was passed in May 2003 and took effect in July 2003, its "Jobs and Growth Plan." The president's economics staff, the Council of Economic Advisers (see background documents), projected that the plan would result in the creation of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004—306,000 new jobs each month, starting in July 2003. The CEA projected that, starting in July 2003, the economy would generate 228,000 jobs a month without a tax cut and 306,000 jobs a month with the tax cut. Thus, it projected that 3,366,000 would be created in the last 11 months. In fact, since the tax cuts took effect, jobs have grown by 1,365,000—two million fewer jobs than the administration projected would be created by enactment of its tax cuts.


http://www.jobwatch.org/ima/20040604_1differenceactproj650.gif

And the real tell tale sign is the unemployment picture:

http://jobsearch.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The unemployment rate has been either 5.6 or 5.7 percent in each month since December 2003.

No Idea where your getting your numbers from hun, but job creation numbers were up since August '03! One Million CREATED in a 3 MONTH SPAN! Alot more if you factor in August to March '04 numbers!
Try looking at the unemployment chart on the following web page:

http://jobsearch.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

If you look carefully, you will notice that there are actually LESS people employed by using the May 2004 numbers (146,974,000), then there was in December of 2003 (146,986,000).

You will also notice that there are 700,000 less people in the workforce in May 2004.

So spin the numbers all you wish, it doesn't change the facts.

are you sure those aren't Canadian Figures?

Our figures are showing an INCREASE IN JOB GROWTH!!!! WE have CREATED 1.5 Million new JOBS!!!! He is nearly there to a NET GAIN OF JOBS! He will have that by election day.

I believe the answer to the Bin Laden thing is in the middle. Most of the family has completely disowned him, however, in a family as large as his (in the hundreds extended) it would be near impossible to say that the Bin Laden family as a whole has either disowned or endorsed Osama. Most but not all of them have disowned him.

@ Canuck : The statistics you cited are for the entire civilian labor force. Look at the sub groups, employment has grown and unemployment has shrunk from the 4th Q of '04 to May '04.

DISCLAIMER: Personally I would prefer a different set of candidates from both parties for this and the previous election, so I'm not all that happy with either side at this time. Now on to my observations;

From looking over this thread, I have observed several things.

BOTH sides seems incredibly uncompromising. As a believer in democracy, I find this unhealthy for the continuation of the great debate that is government. Being ideologically rigid destroys all chances at compromise.

BOTH sides have at times used generalizations and unsupported facts.

And BOTH sides have also expressed their opinions, their views, and their methods of thinking with various levels of success.

However, taking into account the arguments, maturity, and validity of each sides claims, arguments, and rethoric, I have come to a decision about which side has done a better job in argueing their case.

I decided in favor of the pro-Kerry camp.

Reasoning:

1. The pro-Kerry people have supplied more valid evidence from valid sources to support their case and have used that evidence successfully.

2. Though the maturity level of both sides is marginal at best, the pro-Kerry camp has a slight lead, primarily due to reason one, but also due to their greater ability to make and phrase their arguements in a manner that is acceptable for such a debate.

3. Though the pro-Bush camp has had several good poster about indivdual's personal views on why they support Bush, they have not removed the doubt caused by various pro-Kerry rebutals.

I also have the following suggestions to both sides:

Pro-Bush-Your strong point is your personal beliefs on issues. Being an observer of a great many political debates, with various winners in both parties, I have noticed that Republicans try their best to stress results, when they are motivated by personal beliefs. And this hurts their cause when there is no connection, which in the end, is a disservice to what you believe. Also, if you are ever going to win a debate, make sure you work to counter claims of corruption. If you can counter the corruption charge, or remove it, you gain a huge advantage. Also, avoid random generalizations about the other candidate, especially when those same generalizations can come back to hurt you later.

Pro-Kerry-Good work on having good evidence, keep that up. But you are going to have to deal with the real or imagined flip-flop issues. They are your weakness. If no one can trust your candidate to do what he/she says, then you are sunk. Defend their changes in positions when they happen and you will remove a glaring weakness. And when they occur, puncture your oponents generalizations with specifics. And finally, don't get angry while in debate, trivalize jokes that make you as such with intelligent arguements.

Both Sides-I'm not getting the feeling that there is any respect between the two sides. Both are so interenched that they care not that the person on the other side of the arguement is an actual or potential voter. Do not belittle, insult, or engage in "against the man" (ad hominim I believe) attacks. State your cases and prove your points, because only then do you have any chance of getting your opponent to switch sides. By dissrepsecting your opponent, you ruin your own chances to win the argument and their vote. In this case, I feel that neither side has really won today because of this. Finally, use proper grammer and complete sentences. Its a lot easier to get your point accross when you type correctly.

Thank you and good day.

are you sure those aren't Canadian Figures?

Our figures are showing an INCREASE IN JOB GROWTH!!!! WE have CREATED 1.5 Million new JOBS!!!! He is nearly there to a NET GAIN OF JOBS! He will have that by election day.
Actually, Canadian figures are true figures because they are not calculated the way US figures are calculated. You do know how the unemployment figures are calculated in the US?

Officially, the jobless rate dropped to 5.7 percent in December. By historical standards this does not appear high. But this conceals the true unemployment rate which is now in the range of 10% or more.

Nationally, many economists agree that the official U.S. unemployment rate is highly misleading.

One huge factor is the fact that anyone who works even a hour a week is counted as being “employed.”

We start out with 8.7 million workers who are counted as “unemployed.” But there are an additional, uncounted 4.9 million workers who are counted as employed and who are working part time. These workers say they would rather be working full time but can’t find full time work. This is the highest number of dissatisfied part time workers in ten years.

There are also more than 1.5 million workers who are out of work but are not counted as “unemployed” because they have stopped looking for work. Most of this group say they have stopped looking for work because they became depressed at the difficulty, if not impossibility of finding work. These uncounted unemployed are called “discouraged workers.” Their number has increased 20% in the last year and rose again in December.

Put these three groups together and the unemployment rate in the United States jumps to 9.7% - a far cry from the close to 6% rate of unemployment likely to be the focus of the forecasts and arguments in the months ahead.

If you read up on this stuff, perhaps you could learn something? However, if you want to keep looking at the current numbers without looking at the whole picture, all you have is a bunch of numbers that mean squat. Typing in CAPS does not prove your point.

I believe in the Job numbers that are coming out. Yes unemployment is at 5.6%. I never denied that.

What I am denying is that our economy is in the tank. It isn't! IT IS REBOUNDING!!! 1.5 Million jobs created since AUGUST 03! You can't deny that. He is going to have a net job Increase by Election day. Economists are predicting that he will!

Unless something drastic happens, I will continue to believe in the numbers that are comming out!

I believe in the Job numbers that are coming out. Yes unemployment is at 5.6%. I never denied that.

What I am denying is that our economy is in the tank. It isn't! IT IS REBOUNDING!!! 1.5 Million jobs created since AUGUST 03! You can't deny that. He is going to have a net job Increase by Election day. Economists are predicting that he will!

Unless something drastic happens, I will continue to believe in the numbers that are comming out!
You keep saying "economists are predicting" that Bush will have a NET job growth for his full four year term. Can you supply a source for your information?

I don't have too! Just watch the business shows when the numbers come out! That is all I need!

I don't have too! Just watch the business shows when the numbers come out! That is all I need!
You don't have to, or you can't? There is a major difference. I always try to support my arguments with facts. It is courtesy to supply facts in return when requested, or it will appear, as it does to me, that your argument is either unsupportable or based on personal speculation.

I don't have too! Just watch the business shows when the numbers come out! That is all I need!
You don't have to, or you can't? There is a major difference. I always try to support my arguments with facts. It is courtesy to supply facts in return when requested, or it will appear, as it does to me, that your argument is either unsupportable or based on personal speculation.

Hun, I know what the numbers state as does my mother and she has a Major in Economics! She says that the job numbers are good! She has more experience with the Economy than you do!

Whether Bush's attempts to make the world and the U.S a better place succeed remain to be seen, although the man has morals and ethics that have been bestowed onto the nation. Kerry plans to take all those morals away so he can sustain his politically correct status. In my opinion Kerry is Evil and his ideas go against all my religious beliefs. And I do think Bush should be re-elected.

Whether Bush's attempts to make the world and the U.S a better place succeed remain to be seen, although the man has morals and ethics that have been bestowed onto the nation. Kerry plans to take all those morals away so he can sustain his politically correct status. In my opinion Kerry is Evil and his ideas go against all my religious beliefs. And I do think Bush should be re-elected.I resent your attempts to replace democracy with your religious superstitions-

Whether Bush's attempts to make the world and the U.S a better place succeed remain to be seen, although the man has morals and ethics that have been bestowed onto the nation. Kerry plans to take all those morals away so he can sustain his politically correct status. In my opinion Kerry is Evil and his ideas go against all my religious beliefs. And I do think Bush should be re-elected.I resent your attempts to replace democracy with your religious superstitions-

Whether Bush's attempts to make the world and the U.S a better place succeed remain to be seen, although the man has morals and ethics that have been bestowed onto the nation. Kerry plans to take all those morals away so he can sustain his politically correct status. In my opinion Kerry is Evil and his ideas go against all my religious beliefs. And I do think Bush should be re-elected.I resent your attempts to replace democracy with your religious superstitions-

He's not MKULTRA! He made a point that is all! Stop reading into things!

I resent you trying to turn America into a country that will have no funding for our defenses

Whether Bush's attempts to make the world and the U.S a better place succeed remain to be seen, although the man has morals and ethics that have been bestowed onto the nation. Kerry plans to take all those morals away so he can sustain his politically correct status. In my opinion Kerry is Evil and his ideas go against all my religious beliefs. And I do think Bush should be re-elected.I resent your attempts to replace democracy with your religious superstitions-

He's not MKULTRA! He made a point that is all! Stop reading into things!

I resent you trying to turn America into a country that will have no funding for our defenses Bush is the one overextending our troops fighting unjust wars in countrys we have no business being in not me

Whether Bush's attempts to make the world and the U.S a better place succeed remain to be seen, although the man has morals and ethics that have been bestowed onto the nation. Kerry plans to take all those morals away so he can sustain his politically correct status. In my opinion Kerry is Evil and his ideas go against all my religious beliefs. And I do think Bush should be re-elected.I resent your attempts to replace democracy with your religious superstitions-

He's not MKULTRA! He made a point that is all! Stop reading into things!

I resent you trying to turn America into a country that will have no funding for our defenses Bush is the one overextending our troops fighting unjust wars in countrys we have no business being in not me

We wouldn't be overextended, though we're not but that is another story, if Clinton hadn't hacked the military's finances so we could keep the troops that had to leave because of the Defense Cuts!

Whether Bush's attempts to make the world and the U.S a better place succeed remain to be seen, although the man has morals and ethics that have been bestowed onto the nation. Kerry plans to take all those morals away so he can sustain his politically correct status. In my opinion Kerry is Evil and his ideas go against all my religious beliefs. And I do think Bush should be re-elected.I resent your attempts to replace democracy with your religious superstitions-

He's not MKULTRA! He made a point that is all! Stop reading into things!

I resent you trying to turn America into a country that will have no funding for our defenses Bush is the one overextending our troops fighting unjust wars in countrys we have no business being in not me

We wouldn't be overextended, though we're not but that is another story, if Clinton hadn't hacked the military's finances so we could keep the troops that had to leave because of the Defense Cuts!if republicans didnt load the military budget up with trillions of dollars worth of pork and defuncted weapons systems all these years then maybe Bush wouldve had the money to send our soldiers over to Iraq to die for Cheneys greed with the proper gear

I don't have too! Just watch the business shows when the numbers come out! That is all I need!
You don't have to, or you can't? There is a major difference. I always try to support my arguments with facts. It is courtesy to supply facts in return when requested, or it will appear, as it does to me, that your argument is either unsupportable or based on personal speculation.

Hun, I know what the numbers state as does my mother and she has a Major in Economics! She says that the job numbers are good! She has more experience with the Economy than you do!
In all fairness Formal Dances, it is not whether your mother knows more than me about economics, that is not the case here.

I have posted information from Government web sites and major economic writers such as Dean Baker and Heather Boushey of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who submit articles to the New York times and Washington Post, such as the following article:

June 2, 2004

The most striking feature of the recent recession and subsequent period of slow job growth has been the sharp decline in labor force participation. While the unemployment rate never rose very high by historic standards, and the current rate of 5.6 percent is below the average for the last thirty years, there has been an extraordinary falloff in the percentage of workers who are employed.

In the most recent data (April, 2004), the share of the adult population who hold jobs stood at 62.2 percent. By contrast, this employment to population ratio (EPOP) peaked in 2000 at 64.9 percent, a difference of 2.7 percentage points. If the EPOP today were as high as its 2000 peak, it would correspond to another 6 million employed workers.

While some of these six million people are counted in the unemployed (the unemployment rate had fallen to 3.9 percent at its low in 2000), the bulk of them do not enter into the unemployment measure. To be counted as unemployed, a worker must answer to a survey question that they actively were searching for work in the last week. The number of unemployed has increased by 2.5 million some since 2000, but most of the six million missing job holders respond that they were not looking for work, and therefore are counted as being out of the labor force. People who are out of the labor force do not get counted as being unemployed.

Often people give up looking for work, because they view their job prospects as being very poor. This is the reason that the labor force participation rate declines in every recession. However, the decline in labor force participation has never been as long and as sharp as in this downturn. The decline in labor force participation is undoubtedly a reflection of the weak labor market; over the most recent economic downturn, the share of unemployed workers who are "long-term unemployed"-that is, out of work for at least six months, but still searching-has remained at historically high levels for over a year.

I do not pretend to be an economist but I do have the ability to read, and what I am reading does not seem to support your position. IMHO.

Sorry but I just don't see what your saying!

Jobs ARE being Created 1.5 Million since August 03

The GDP for the first quarter was over 3.5% the highest its been in a couple of decades.

They are seeing rapid job growth.

As for the unemployment, yes its held steady and alot of people are stating that is good that it has held steady. It'll go down again.

Those are the numbers that are coming out and EVERYONE is broadcasting it! All media outlets have stated exactly what I just said From Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, ABC, Washington Times, Washington Post, NYT, NYP, and the papers and media here where I live.

I'm sorry but I have to go by what i'm seeing.

In the matter of calling my beliefs superstition is utter disrespect. I feel sorry for the fact that you so childishly accept what the popular thought of religion is now that everyone totally disregards what the bible says. Government back in history was always built on and around Religion. So i find it hard to believe that you can recent me for trying to replace democracy for religion when democracy it's self was built around religion, or was that just an ignorant statement from someone that clearly doesn't know their history.

In the matter of calling my beliefs superstition is utter disrespect. I feel sorry for the fact that you so childishly accept what the popular thought of religion is now that everyone totally disregards what the bible says. Government back in history was always built on and around Religion. So i find it hard to believe that you can recent me for trying to replace democracy for religion when democracy it's self was built around religion, or was that just an ignorant statement from someone that clearly doesn't know their history.

He doesn't know his history as my arguements with him have shown time and time again!

It is a bit odd the only arguement he can have is slander at ones beliefs and not the actual problem at hand.

It is a bit odd the only arguement he can have is slander at ones beliefs and not the actual problem at hand.

You're correct Gottes Reich! That is all he does! Slanders a person for their beliefs but doesn't come up with solving it! Sounds like Kerry! LOL

Sorry but I just don't see what your saying!

Jobs ARE being Created 1.5 Million since August 03

The GDP for the first quarter was over 3.5% the highest its been in a couple of decades.

They are seeing rapid job growth.

As for the unemployment, yes its held steady and alot of people are stating that is good that it has held steady. It'll go down again.

Those are the numbers that are coming out and EVERYONE is broadcasting it! All media outlets have stated exactly what I just said From Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, ABC, Washington Times, Washington Post, NYT, NYP, and the papers and media here where I live.

I'm sorry but I have to go by what i'm seeing.
Can you post some of that? I know, you don't have to was your previous reply. Oh well....

On the basis of no credible evidence whatsoever, the White House boasts that Bush's proposed tax cut would create 1.4 million jobs by the end of 2004. Even if it did, Bush would still have presided over a net loss of 1.3 million jobs during the 2001–2005 presidential term.

Then of course there are always pictures, which saves typing.

http://www.bartcop.com/chart-jobs-2003.jpg

OH BROTHER!!!!

Hello? We've had Terror attacks, Corporate scandels, a recession. All of this factors into job creation too you know! It takes time for things to get going again!

The Jobs are being created and people are being hired according to the US LABOR DEPARTMENT and COMMERCE DEPARTMENT! I follow what they are saying not what some economic group states.

No one expected that the Jobs would be gushing into our country. They are. We have ACCELARETED JOB GROWTH!! More Jobs created than expected. As such, those are OLD NUMBERS! I follow the Current ones coming out of our LABOR and COMMERCE DEPARTMENTS! Until they start to reflect the numbers your posting, which they don't, then I will believe you. Until then, I will believe the LABOR Department!

I believe in the Job numbers that are coming out. Yes unemployment is at 5.6%. I never denied that.

What I am denying is that our economy is in the tank. It isn't! IT IS REBOUNDING!!! 1.5 Million jobs created since AUGUST 03! You can't deny that. He is going to have a net job Increase by Election day. Economists are predicting that he will!

Unless something drastic happens, I will continue to believe in the numbers that are comming out!
You keep saying "economists are predicting" that Bush will have a NET job growth for his full four year term. Can you supply a source for your information?

Of course. They will do what they have always done...oull numbers outta thier ass, and tell us to believe them! And there's enough dodo birds in this country who will believe them!
Can anybody else remember the supposed downturn in world terrorism, the now-infamous 2003 Patterns of Global Terrorism, that Bush used to say we were winning the War on Terror...only to have to admit later that there were serious flaws in the data reporting, and that, in fact, terrorism is at a 20-year HIGH??
Just like with the 2003 Patterns on Global Terrorism report, they will pull whatever numbers they like, that will advance their agenda (getting elected - I still refuse to say re-elected...because ya cant be RE-elected when ya weren't ELECTED in the first place!) and they will feed it to that goddam liberal media we keep hearing about that all have their noses shoved so far up the Administration's ass that if they made a quick turn, the media would be looking like Geraldo Rivera did about 15 years ago!! They will pull numbers that they like outa their ass, we will be told to believe them by that goddam liberal media...and of course, enough people WILL believe it, until after the election is over...THEN, maybe we'll get the TRUE figures, when another accounting error (oops) is found, and he's safely back in office, and answerable to NO ONE, since he won't be able to serve a third term.
Oh, and mark my words, gas prices will go way down starting in about mid-September, just in time for the election, how convenient!! And we will also "capture" OBL in about early October. We probably already have him...El Shrub is just waiting for the time of best political advantage to trot him out and parade him before the American voter. you heard it here, first.
I truly believe Bush would sink that low.

In other news, I FINALLY GOT A JOB!!!

Not my dream job, to be sure...but in this shit economy, I'll learn to like it until we get a good Democrat in office, and then we get REAL jobs in this country again.

I believe in the Job numbers that are coming out. Yes unemployment is at 5.6%. I never denied that.

What I am denying is that our economy is in the tank. It isn't! IT IS REBOUNDING!!! 1.5 Million jobs created since AUGUST 03! You can't deny that. He is going to have a net job Increase by Election day. Economists are predicting that he will!

Unless something drastic happens, I will continue to believe in the numbers that are comming out!
You keep saying "economists are predicting" that Bush will have a NET job growth for his full four year term. Can you supply a source for your information?

Of course. They will do what they have always done...oull numbers outta thier ass, and tell us to believe them! And there's enough dodo birds in this country who will believe them!
Can anybody else remember the supposed downturn in world terrorism, the now-infamous 2003 Patterns of Global Terrorism, that Bush used to say we were winning the War on Terror...only to have to admit later that there were serious flaws in the data reporting, and that, in fact, terrorism is at a 20-year HIGH??
Just like with the 2003 Patterns on Global Terrorism report, they will pull whatever numbers they like, that will advance their agenda (getting elected - I still refuse to say re-elected...because ya cant be RE-elected when ya weren't ELECTED in the first place!) and they will feed it to that goddam liberal media we keep hearing about that all have their noses shoved so far up the Administration's ass that if they made a quick turn, the media would be looking like Geraldo Rivera did about 15 years ago!! They will pull numbers that they like outa their ass, we will be told to believe them by that goddam liberal media...and of course, enough people WILL believe it, until after the election is over...THEN, maybe we'll get the TRUE figures, when another accounting error (oops) is found, and he's safely back in office, and answerable to NO ONE, since he won't be able to serve a third term.
Oh, and mark my words, gas prices will go way down starting in about mid-September, just in time for the election, how convenient!! And we will also "capture" OBL in about early October. We probably already have him...El Shrub is just waiting for the time of best political advantage to trot him out and parade him before the American voter. you heard it here, first.
I truly believe Bush would sink that low.

In other news, I FINALLY GOT A JOB!!!

Not my dream job, to be sure...but in this shit economy, I'll learn to like it until we get a good Democrat in office, and then we get REAL jobs in this country again.

We get a democrat in there, the tax cuts are gone and the economy goes down, people will lose jobs.

Not what I call a good compromise!

Whether Bush's attempts to make the world and the U.S a better place succeed remain to be seen, although the man has morals and ethics that have been bestowed onto the nation. Kerry plans to take all those morals away so he can sustain his politically correct status. In my opinion Kerry is Evil and his ideas go against all my religious beliefs. And I do think Bush should be re-elected.I resent your attempts to replace democracy with your religious superstitions-

I share your resentment and second it.

Whether Bush's attempts to make the world and the U.S a better place succeed remain to be seen, although the man has morals and ethics that have been bestowed onto the nation. Kerry plans to take all those morals away so he can sustain his politically correct status. In my opinion Kerry is Evil and his ideas go against all my religious beliefs. And I do think Bush should be re-elected.I resent your attempts to replace democracy with your religious superstitions-

I share your resentment and second it.

I said it before and I'll say it again. He isn't attempting to replace democracy with religious superstitions. That'll be the muslim Extremists that we are fighting!

OH BROTHER!!!!

Hello? We've had Terror attacks, Corporate scandels, a recession. All of this factors into job creation too you know! It takes time for things to get going again!

The Jobs are being created and people are being hired according to the US LABOR DEPARTMENT and COMMERCE DEPARTMENT! I follow what they are saying not what some economic group states.

No one expected that the Jobs would be gushing into our country. They are. We have ACCELARETED JOB GROWTH!! More Jobs created than expected. As such, those are OLD NUMBERS! I follow the Current ones coming out of our LABOR and COMMERCE DEPARTMENTS! Until they start to reflect the numbers your posting, which they don't, then I will believe you. Until then, I will believe the LABOR Department!

Translation: I will believe the numbers that support the conclusion I want to produce, accurate or not.

Whether Bush's attempts to make the world and the U.S a better place succeed remain to be seen, although the man has morals and ethics that have been bestowed onto the nation. Kerry plans to take all those morals away so he can sustain his politically correct status. In my opinion Kerry is Evil and his ideas go against all my religious beliefs. And I do think Bush should be re-elected.I resent your attempts to replace democracy with your religious superstitions-

I share your resentment and second it.

I said it before and I'll say it again. He isn't attempting to replace democracy with religious superstitions. That'll be the muslim Extremists that we are fighting!

I'm not going to argue with you, Formal Dances. for one thing, you never source your claims. For another, it is pointless to argue with someone who just KNOWS they are right. No matter what figures or souc=rces we throw at you, you will debunk them and refuse to believe them because they do not support the conclusion you want to produce. So argument with you is pointless.
Third, argument with you is dangerous on two levels...

A - I already, just like you, got formally warned about flaming, and I am NOT going to get DEATed over this, I have almost 2 years into building my nation. And you make me so mad I see red!!
B- You make my blood pressure go up to the point of insanity...I swear, you get me so mad my head is about to explode!

So I'll leave you with this quote again, from P. J. O'Rourke...heard it yeaterday morning on "America In The Morning" with Jim Bohannon, who was interviewing O'Rourke....

"We are going about The War Against Terrorism in the wrong way. We should be looking for common ground. We ould say to them...you're religious lunatics..WE'RE religious lunatics! How 'bout them Salem witch trials?? Come to America, guys, you can be Osama Bin Ashcroft!!"

Thank you, P. J. O'Rourke, for your cutting analysis...as always, P.J. can be counted on to put things in their proper perspective.

We get a democrat in there, the tax cuts are gone and the economy goes down, people will lose jobs.

Not what I call a good compromise!Dems will only reverse all the tax cuts Bush wasted on billionaires who didnt need one

Ok let me shed alittle light for those who decide to recent me. I said it once and i'll say it again GOVERNMENT WAS BUILT ON RELIGION. If anything it's your Democracy that is fueling the fire of the liberals to replace religion. It is not the increase of religion that is occuring here but the decrease. So where does that leave your theory?

We get a democrat in there, the tax cuts are gone and the economy goes down, people will lose jobs.

Not what I call a good compromise!Dems will only reverse all the tax cuts Bush wasted on billionaires who didnt need one

And those billionaires will have to layoff their employees because they won't be able to afford to keep them!

We get a democrat in there, the tax cuts are gone and the economy goes down, people will lose jobs.

Not what I call a good compromise!Dems will only reverse all the tax cuts Bush wasted on billionaires who didnt need one

And those billionaires will have to layoff their employees because they won't be able to afford to keep them!

(this is for all Yankee-hating Bush fans)

Ever since Bush took office the Yankees have never won a World Series . . . :shock:

We get a democrat in there, the tax cuts are gone and the economy goes down, people will lose jobs.

Not what I call a good compromise!
The economy will go down under a Democrat administration? Guess again:

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_gdp50.gif

Only 1 Republican President over the median line. The rest are Democrats.

We get a democrat in there, the tax cuts are gone and the economy goes down, people will lose jobs.

Not what I call a good compromise!Dems will only reverse all the tax cuts Bush wasted on billionaires who didnt need one
Do you mean these "tax cuts" that favour the wealthiest in the US?

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_tax_dist.gif

Maybe they are getting low in coin?

(this is for all Yankee-hating Bush fans)

Ever since Bush took office the Yankees have never won a World Series . . . :shock:

No one likes the New York Yankees. :lol:

(this is for all Yankee-hating Bush fans)

Ever since Bush took office the Yankees have never won a World Series . . . :shock:

No one likes the New York Yankees. :lol:

I'm thinking about coming in and salvaging this troll/flame/cut-and-paste/no-info fest, but I need to be able to see those pictures first, I'm getting red X's. My guess is that I've seen them before and written lengthy posts debunking them, but oh well.

I'll post the economic figures tomorrow!

I'm thinking about coming in and salvaging this troll/flame/cut-and-paste/no-info fest, but I need to be able to see those pictures first, I'm getting red X's. My guess is that I've seen them before and written lengthy posts debunking them, but oh well.
Why do you call it "troll/flame/cut-and-paste/no-info fest", when there are clearly lots of reasons which I have posted from reliable sources, that should make people at least take a little notice on whether Bush should be re-elected or not?

Well its not only you.

I'm thinking about coming in and salvaging this troll/flame/cut-and-paste/no-info fest, but I need to be able to see those pictures first, I'm getting red X's. My guess is that I've seen them before and written lengthy posts debunking them, but oh well.
Why do you call it "troll/flame/cut-and-paste/no-info fest", when there are clearly lots of reasons which I have posted from reliable sources, that should make people at least take a little notice on whether Bush should be re-elected or not?

Reliable?

www.bls.gov

There is economic figures there!

go to the top and click on get detailed statistics!

On Tax cuts from something less partisan than a website made by Democratic Senators :

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/GIF/egtrra_distribution_cut.gif
www.TaxPolicyCenter.Org

In terms of percent,

In 2000 Married Filling Jointly :

Range .... Rate
$0-$43,850 ..... 15%
$43,850-$105,950 ..... 28%
$105,950-$161,450 ..... 31%
$161,450-$288,350 ..... 36%
$288,350- ..... 39.60%


Then, by 2004, the had changed a bit, benifiting the poorer :
$0-$14,300 ..... 10%
$14,300-$58,100 ..... 15%
$58,100-$117,250 ..... 25%
$117,250-$178,600 ..... 28%
$178,600-$319,100 ..... 33%
$319,100 ..... 35%

So basically the biggest break came for those making between $43,850 and $58,100, a solidly average amount. Total percent it went down was 13%. The richest only went down 4.6%.



That can be found at these two URL's : http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=325
and http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=144

On Tax cuts from something less partisan than a website made by Democratic Senators :

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/GIF/egtrra_distribution_cut.gif
www.TaxPolicyCenter.Org

In terms of percent,

In 2000 Married Filling Jointly :

Range Rate
$0-$43,850 15%
$43,850-$105,950 28%
$105,950-$161,450 31%
$161,450-$288,350 36%
$288,350- 39.60%


Then, by 2004, the had changed a bit, benifiting the poorer :
$0-$14,300 10%
$14,300-$58,100 15%
$58,100-$117,250 25%
$117,250-$178,600 28%
$178,600-$319,100 33%
$319,100 35%

So basically the biggest break came for those making between $43,850 and $58,100, a solidly average amount. Total percent it went down was 13%. The richest only went down 4.6%.



That can be found at these two URL's : http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=325
and http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=144

No wonder I got a bike! They could afford the one I had my eyes on :D

I'm voting for Bush because he represents what I want for the United States, and the Democrats don't. Democrats stand for:

Caring more for the "feelings" of US-hating foreigners than protecting Americans.

Vegetarianism

Begging Europe for approval.

Surrender of U. S. sovereignty.

I think Bush should be reelected for many reasons, including his staunch policy of acctually fighting terrorism and his excellent leadership with respect to the economy. The economy is doing great, despite what is portraied in the media, and more than 1 million jobs have been created in the last six months, mostly due to Bush's tax cuts. I suppost almost all of Bush's policies, with the exception of his immigration policy, which is really stupid. He is obviously doing it just to get the hispanic vote.

Also, look at his opposition. Kerry has no beliefs, other than to make the economy better and create jobs. How is he going to do that if he wants to raise the taxes? The only specific issue of his is that he says he will raise the divident tax rate back to 38% from its currect 15%. That is a mistake, it will turn people away from the market. And as someone that recently put money into the market, I know I dont want the government to raise that tax, even if it will not affect me now (my tax free minor status :). Kerry has flipflopped on many issues. I don't agree with anything he stands for.

I think Bush should be reelected for many reasons, including his staunch policy of acctually fighting terrorism and his excellent leadership with respect to the economy. The economy is doing great, despite what is portraied in the media, and more than 1 million jobs have been created in the last six months, mostly due to Bush's tax cuts. I suppost almost all of Bush's policies, with the exception of his immigration policy, which is really stupid. He is obviously doing it just to get the hispanic vote.

Also, look at his opposition. Kerry has no beliefs, other than to make the economy better and create jobs. How is he going to do that if he wants to raise the taxes? The only specific issue of his is that he says he will raise the divident tax rate back to 38% from its currect 15%. That is a mistake, it will turn people away from the market. And as someone that recently put money into the market, I know I dont want the government to raise that tax, even if it will not affect me now (my tax free minor status :). Kerry has flipflopped on many issues. I don't agree with anything he stands for.I would pay mad bucks to get high off of some of the kool aid these Bush supporters are drinking

I think Bush should be reelected for many reasons, including his staunch policy of acctually fighting terrorism and his excellent leadership with respect to the economy. The economy is doing great, despite what is portraied in the media, and more than 1 million jobs have been created in the last six months, mostly due to Bush's tax cuts. I suppost almost all of Bush's policies, with the exception of his immigration policy, which is really stupid. He is obviously doing it just to get the hispanic vote.

Also, look at his opposition. Kerry has no beliefs, other than to make the economy better and create jobs. How is he going to do that if he wants to raise the taxes? The only specific issue of his is that he says he will raise the divident tax rate back to 38% from its currect 15%. That is a mistake, it will turn people away from the market. And as someone that recently put money into the market, I know I dont want the government to raise that tax, even if it will not affect me now (my tax free minor status :). Kerry has flipflopped on many issues. I don't agree with anything he stands for.I would pay mad bucks to get high off of some of the kool aid these Bush supporters are drinking


yeah i want some of that too

I think Bush should be reelected for many reasons, including his staunch policy of acctually fighting terrorism and his excellent leadership with respect to the economy. The economy is doing great, despite what is portraied in the media, and more than 1 million jobs have been created in the last six months, mostly due to Bush's tax cuts. I suppost almost all of Bush's policies, with the exception of his immigration policy, which is really stupid. He is obviously doing it just to get the hispanic vote.

Also, look at his opposition. Kerry has no beliefs, other than to make the economy better and create jobs. How is he going to do that if he wants to raise the taxes? The only specific issue of his is that he says he will raise the divident tax rate back to 38% from its currect 15%. That is a mistake, it will turn people away from the market. And as someone that recently put money into the market, I know I dont want the government to raise that tax, even if it will not affect me now (my tax free minor status :). Kerry has flipflopped on many issues. I don't agree with anything he stands for.I would pay mad bucks to get high off of some of the kool aid these Bush supporters are drinking

MKULTRA, I am glad that our taxes are low. It makes our economy GO UP! Tax Hikes makes it GO DOWN!!! If it we get a tax hike as Kerry is saying, the Markets go DOWN and we LOSE JOBS!!

This might be a little easier to understand rather than percentages:

http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/tmdb/Content/GIF/T03-0193.gif

You will notice that 200,000 people, making $1,000,000 will get a "tax cut" of $127,000 for a total of $25 Billion

384,000 people making $500,000 to $1,000,000 will get a "tax cut" of $24,146 for a total of $9.2 Billion

2,300,000 people making $200,000 to $500,000 will get a "tax cut" of $7,430 for a total of $17 Billion

9,615,000 people making $100,000 to $200,000 will get a "tax cut" of $3,825 for a total of $36.7 Billion

9,954,000 people making $75,000 to $100,000 will get a "tax cut" of $2,640 for a total of $26.2 Billion

18,227,000 people making $50,000 to $75,000 will get a "tax cut" of $1,445 for a total of $26.3 Billion

10,550,000 people making $40,000 to $50,000 will get a "tax cut" of $1,018 for a total of $10.7 Billion

13,625,000 people making $30,000 to $40,000 will get a "tax cut" of $827 for a total of $11.2 Billion

18,557,000 people making $20,000 to $30,000 will get a "tax cut" of $650 for a total of $12 Billion

23,239,000 people making $10,000 to $20,000 will get a "tax cut" of $312 for a total of $7.2 Billion

33,461,000 people making less than $10,000 will get a "tax cut" of $8 for a total of $267 Million

Total Number of Taxpayers = 141,030,000 of which, 88,882,000 in bottom 4 tax brackets (63%) will share $30.7 Billion and 584,000 in top 2 tax brackets (0.004%) will share $34.2 Billion

Therefore, someone making a $1 Million will get 48 times more money as a tax cut then someone making $100,000

Also someone making a $1 Million will get 81 times more money as a tax cut then someone making $75,000

Mind boggling huh?????

This might be a little easier to understand rather than percentages:

http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/tmdb/Content/GIF/T03-0193.gif

You will notice that 200,000 people, making $1,000,000 will get a "tax cut" of $127,000 for a total of $25 Billion

384,000 people making $500,000 to $1,000,000 will get a "tax cut" of $24,146 for a total of $9.2 Billion

2,300,000 people making $200,000 to $500,000 will get a "tax cut" of $7,430 for a total of $17 Billion

9,615,000 people making $100,000 to $200,000 will get a "tax cut" of $3,825 for a total of $36.7 Billion

9,954,000 people making $75,000 to $100,000 will get a "tax cut" of $2,640 for a total of $26.2 Billion

18,227,000 people making $50,000 to $75,000 will get a "tax cut" of $1,445 for a total of $26.3 Billion

10,550,000 people making $40,000 to $50,000 will get a "tax cut" of $1,018 for a total of $10.7 Billion

13,625,000 people making $30,000 to $40,000 will get a "tax cut" of $827 for a total of $11.2 Billion

18,557,000 people making $20,000 to $30,000 will get a "tax cut" of $650 for a total of $12 Billion

23,239,000 people making $10,000 to $20,000 will get a "tax cut" of $312 for a total of $7.2 Billion

33,461,000 people making less than $10,000 will get a "tax cut" of $8 for a total of $267 Million

Total Number of Taxpayers = 141,030,000 of which, 88,882,000 in bottom 4 tax brackets (63%) will share $30.7 Billion and 584,000 in top 2 tax brackets (0.004%) will share $34.2 Billion

Therefore, someone making a $1 Million will get 48 times more money as a tax cut then someone making $100,000

Also someone making a $1 Million will get 81 times more money as a tax cut then someone making $75,000

Mind boggling huh?????

also notice the year? September '03? where are the current numbers? That just blows your entire arguement.

How does it blow the whole argument Formal Dances? Those are the "tax cut" figures, and the date is illrelevant. Can you refute these figures?

Therefore, someone making a $1 Million will get 48 times more money as a tax cut then someone making $100,000

Also someone making a $1 Million will get 81 times more money as a tax cut then someone making $75,000

Are you paying attention tax payers?

How does it blow the whole argument Formal Dances? Those are the "tax cut" figures, and the date is illrelevant. Can you refute these figures?

It gives the people more hiring power. It give people an opportunity to afford homes. It give people the opportunity to invest their money wisely so they don't have to live off of social security! Frankly, I trust what Kwangistar posted. Granted its from the same site. and Yes the year is relevent!

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

In 1999, then presidential candidate George W. Bush and his followers set their sights on lower taxes. Five years and three tax cuts later, they have succeeded spectacularly. As a share of the economy, taxes are now at levels last seen in the Truman Administration.

And it ain't over yet. The President's budget includes over $1 trillion in additional tax cuts.

There is, however, a slight problem. When Truman held office back in the fifties, government was much smaller. That was before interstate highways, Medicare, food stamps, the EPA, NASA, and several government departments. With fifties-era income and 21st century expenses, our government is hemorrhaging red ink.

Not to worry. Vice President Cheney reportedly said that deficits don't matter. Low taxes will invigorate the economy and deficits will squeeze out government waste. The first President Bush once rejected that kind of wishful thinking as "Voodoo economics," but lawmakers love Cheney's message anyway.

From the mouth of Poppa Bush comes a little wisdom?

We like our tax cuts! We want our tax cuts. It gives us more to spend to revitalize the economy. Without the taxcuts, our economy would still be in a slump. The Tax Cuts has brought us out of that slump and will continue to do so.

CanuckHeaven, your canadian. You have no idea what the people of the US want just like I don't know what you Canadians want. I do know that the people don't want the tax cuts to be rolled back.

Kerry is promising this which in essence would be a TAX HIKE! The ECONOMY WILL GO DOWN. In case you don't know the basics of Economics, if people have to pay more to keep a business running, they are going to CUT JOBS! Cut jobs is the last thing we want! If Jobs get CUT then the UNEMPLOYMENT RATE goes UP not DOWN! Look at the whole picture before you say that tax cuts are a bad idea!

How does it blow the whole argument Formal Dances? Those are the "tax cut" figures, and the date is illrelevant. Can you refute these figures?

It gives the people more hiring power. It give people an opportunity to afford homes. It give people the opportunity to invest their money wisely so they don't have to live off of social security! Frankly, I trust what Kwangistar posted. Granted its from the same site. and Yes the year is relevent!
Actually if you look at the chart I posted, it does say:

Baseline 2004, so quite relevant.

How does it blow the whole argument Formal Dances? Those are the "tax cut" figures, and the date is illrelevant. Can you refute these figures?

It gives the people more hiring power. It give people an opportunity to afford homes. It give people the opportunity to invest their money wisely so they don't have to live off of social security! Frankly, I trust what Kwangistar posted. Granted its from the same site. and Yes the year is relevent!
Actually if you look at the chart I posted, it does say:

Baseline 2004, so quite relevant.

Then explain to us why we are experience rapid job growth mr. I know American Economics better than the Department Of Labor!

We like our tax cuts! We want our tax cuts. It gives us more to spend to revitalize the economy. Without the taxcuts, our economy would still be in a slump. The Tax Cuts has brought us out of that slump and will continue to do so.

CanuckHeaven, your canadian. You have no idea what the people of the US want just like I don't know what you Canadians want. I do know that the people don't want the tax cuts to be rolled back.

Kerry is promising this which in essence would be a TAX HIKE! The ECONOMY WILL GO DOWN. In case you don't know the basics of Economics, if people have to pay more to keep a business running, they are going to CUT JOBS! Cut jobs is the last thing we want! If Jobs get CUT then the UNEMPLOYMENT RATE goes UP not DOWN! Look at the whole picture before you say that tax cuts are a bad idea!
Kerry is NOT proposing a tax hike. The economy will boom like it did under Clinton because the middle class will spend their money, not like the wealthy. Why are you fear mongering?

ok ok hold up

everyon who knows we STILL have lost more jobs than we have gained, raise your hand

HAHAHA!!!

Rolling back the Tax Cuts sure sounds like a Tax Height to me. Can't believe you think its not but it is!

And i'm not the one fear mongering. it is actually the truth. Kerry wants to "roll back the bush tax cuts" This means tax hike. The American Populace isn't stupid.

As for losing more jobs than gained, just wait. That'll change as well. I am acknowledging that we still have a net loss but that net loss is rapidly being closed thanks to rapid job growth.

How does it blow the whole argument Formal Dances? Those are the "tax cut" figures, and the date is illrelevant. Can you refute these figures?

It gives the people more hiring power. It give people an opportunity to afford homes. It give people the opportunity to invest their money wisely so they don't have to live off of social security! Frankly, I trust what Kwangistar posted. Granted its from the same site. and Yes the year is relevent!
Actually if you look at the chart I posted, it does say:

Baseline 2004, so quite relevant.

Then explain to us why we are experience rapid job growth mr. I know American Economics better than the Department Of Labor!
No offense but I do believe that given all the information that has been provided on this thread, that you are not exactly representing the inescapable facts accurately.

You are interpreting them in a speculative way. You seem to think that Democrats don't know how to run an economy and the fact is that they have done a spectacular job. Some of the US best economies have been during Democratic tenure.

HAHAHA!!!

Rolling back the Tax Cuts sure sounds like a Tax Height to me. Can't believe you think its not but it is!

And i'm not the one fear mongering. it is actually the truth. Kerry wants to "roll back the bush tax cuts" This means tax hike. The American Populace isn't stupid.

As for losing more jobs than gained, just wait. That'll change as well. I am acknowledging that we still have a net loss but that net loss is rapidly being closed thanks to rapid job growth.

1) trickl down economics doesnt work, period. thanks for playing. repealing the ludicrous tax hikes and cutting spending is how we save our rear end

2) we have lost ~3mil, we have gained around 1.4mil, that leaves us at over 50% loss still

Business cycle fell just right for that to happen. If bush gets 4 more years and he will because Kerry has nothing to run on, the business cycle will turn and we'll have good economic times!

HAHAHA!!!

Rolling back the Tax Cuts sure sounds like a Tax Height to me. Can't believe you think its not but it is!

And i'm not the one fear mongering. it is actually the truth. Kerry wants to "roll back the bush tax cuts" This means tax hike. The American Populace isn't stupid.

As for losing more jobs than gained, just wait. That'll change as well. I am acknowledging that we still have a net loss but that net loss is rapidly being closed thanks to rapid job growth.

1) trickl down economics doesnt work, period. thanks for playing. repealing the ludicrous tax hikes and cutting spending is how we save our rear end

2) we have lost ~3mil, we have gained around 1.4mil, that leaves us at over 50% loss still

3 million my butt. more closer to 2 million jobs lost not 3 million lost. As for the 2 million lost and by the number you quoted, we are 600,000 jobs away from closing that gap and turning it into a net gain. As I said, by election day, we'll have a NET GAIN of jobs.

oh yeah low "cars, clothing, and computer" prices here we come

thats seriously what a rihght winger listed when he said we had a good economy, on the other hand a democrat listaed the reaons we have a bad economy citing high groceries, gas and other essentials, hmm who sounds right, PROBABLY THE ONE SAYING THE ECONOMY IS BAD BASED ON ACTUAL THINGS WE NEED

HAHAHA!!!

Rolling back the Tax Cuts sure sounds like a Tax Height to me. Can't believe you think its not but it is!

And i'm not the one fear mongering. it is actually the truth. Kerry wants to "roll back the bush tax cuts" This means tax hike. The American Populace isn't stupid.

As for losing more jobs than gained, just wait. That'll change as well. I am acknowledging that we still have a net loss but that net loss is rapidly being closed thanks to rapid job growth.

1) trickl down economics doesnt work, period. thanks for playing. repealing the ludicrous tax hikes and cutting spending is how we save our rear end

2) we have lost ~3mil, we have gained around 1.4mil, that leaves us at over 50% loss still

3 million my butt. more closer to 2 million jobs lost not 3 million lost. As for the 2 million lost and by the number you quoted, we are 600,000 jobs away from closing that gap and turning it into a net gain. As I said, by election day, we'll have a NET GAIN of jobs.

no its abnout 3 mil, 2.7 million jobs according to a bush campaign rep. exactly. the guy said 2.7 mil total lost, 1.2mil total gained, exactly

HAHAHA!!!

Rolling back the Tax Cuts sure sounds like a Tax Height to me. Can't believe you think its not but it is!

And i'm not the one fear mongering. it is actually the truth. Kerry wants to "roll back the bush tax cuts" This means tax hike. The American Populace isn't stupid.

As for losing more jobs than gained, just wait. That'll change as well. I am acknowledging that we still have a net loss but that net loss is rapidly being closed thanks to rapid job growth.

1) trickl down economics doesnt work, period. thanks for playing. repealing the ludicrous tax hikes and cutting spending is how we save our rear end

2) we have lost ~3mil, we have gained around 1.4mil, that leaves us at over 50% loss still

3 million my butt. more closer to 2 million jobs lost not 3 million lost. As for the 2 million lost and by the number you quoted, we are 600,000 jobs away from closing that gap and turning it into a net gain. As I said, by election day, we'll have a NET GAIN of jobs.

no its abnout 3 mil, 2.7 million jobs according to a bush campaign rep. exactly. the guy said 2.7 mil total lost, 1.2mil total gained, exactly

Still saying we'll have a net gain and that bush will get re-elected. He'll get re-elected on Foreign policy and on how the Economy is growing! Kerry has nothing to run on and he knows it.

listen, the economy is not growing, at least not effectively, you cite hows its growing with factors that WE notice and effect US and i will believe you.


and his foreign policy is ludicrous, ltes bomb things because well we dont like them

kerry will get elected on about everything

HAHAHA!!!

Rolling back the Tax Cuts sure sounds like a Tax Height to me. Can't believe you think its not but it is!

And i'm not the one fear mongering. it is actually the truth. Kerry wants to "roll back the bush tax cuts" This means tax hike. The American Populace isn't stupid.

As for losing more jobs than gained, just wait. That'll change as well. I am acknowledging that we still have a net loss but that net loss is rapidly being closed thanks to rapid job growth.

Senator Kerry has said that he will repeal the Bush tax cuts for households with incomes over $200,000, but not the middle-class tax cuts, which he intends to make permanent. (See Table 1.) He also proposes a new refundable tax credit for higher education expenses, and changes to the estate tax.

That would represent a tax hike for those making over $200,000 but it would take their taxes back to where they were before Bush's tax cuts were implimented.

Actually if I was making $200,000 or less in the US, I would be hopping mad that the wealthiest taxpayers (0.004%) were going to get a "tax cut" that was 33 times more money then I would get. $127,000 to $3,825. That is outrageous!!

listen, the economy is not growing, at least not effectively, you cite hows its growing with factors that WE notice and effect US and i will believe you.


and his foreign policy is ludicrous, ltes bomb things because well we dont like them

kerry will get elected on about everything

If you follow this election, he hasn't done a thing. He hasn't promised how he will do things. He wants the UN to run things for the US. The US won't be an effective nation militarily because we will have to go through the UN for every little thing. Not a good way to run a nation.

He wants to raise our taxes. Not going to fly with Americans. As for bombing things, he did try to go through the same UN to get the UN to act against Hussein but France blocked us so we and our allies invoked past UN resolutions and liberated Iraq.

As for our economy, it is GROWING. 3.9% GDP 1st Quarter growth. Highest growth in years. The economy is growing. Jobs are being created. Yes we have a net loss but it is rapidly closing. Economic News is good on all fronts including manufacturing. Don't know who you've been listening too but all numbers indicate an effective growing economy.

Furthermore, Kerry's rollback of taxes to the "wealthiest", would only affect 2,884,000 people. Everyone else would get their "tax cut" as proposed.

Furthermore, Kerry's rollback of taxes to the "wealthiest", would only affect 2,884,000 people. Everyone else would get their "tax cut" as proposed.

And alot of those that will lose their tax cut will have to layoff workers because they will be paying higher taxes and won't be able to afford to keep them.

[quote=Chess Squares]listen, the economy is not growing, at least not effectively, you cite hows its growing with factors that WE notice and effect US and i will believe you.


and his foreign policy is ludicrous, ltes bomb things because well we dont like them

kerry will get elected on about everything



He wants to raise our taxes. Not going to fly with Americans. As for bombing things, he did try to go through the same UN to get the UN to act against Hussein but France blocked us so we and our allies invoked past UN resolutions and liberated Iraq.

So your family makes over $200,000?

There are only 2,884,000 Americans making over 200,000, which by the way represents a $51 Billion saving!! So why wouldn't this fly with Americans as a whole? The other 139,000,000 Americans will get their "tax cut".

Furthermore, Kerry's rollback of taxes to the "wealthiest", would only affect 2,884,000 people. Everyone else would get their "tax cut" as proposed.

And alot of those that will lose their tax cut will have to layoff workers because they will be paying higher taxes and won't be able to afford to keep them.

im having this same debate on another forum on the sam reason, but backwords

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE AND PEOPLE ARE NOT CORPORATIONS

Furthermore, Kerry's rollback of taxes to the "wealthiest", would only affect 2,884,000 people. Everyone else would get their "tax cut" as proposed.

And alot of those that will lose their tax cut will have to layoff workers because they will be paying higher taxes and won't be able to afford to keep them.
Actually, a lot of them are paying low wage earners such as in Wal Marts, and shipping jobs offshore.

Besides, you are talking about personal income taxes here, not business taxes.

If you follow this election, he hasn't done a thing. He hasn't promised how he will do things.

Not true. If you want to read about HOW he will plan on doing things, simply go to his website and read about the issues: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

To say he hasn't formulated a plan on how he's going to fix the problems in America is to be uninformed.

If you follow this election, he hasn't done a thing. He hasn't promised how he will do things.

Not true. If you want to read about HOW he will plan on doing things, simply go to his website and read about the issues: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

To say he hasn't formulated a plan on how he's going to fix the problems in America is to be uninformed.

He better start explaining on National TV and not some website. I haven't heard where he stood and I would rather hear it from his mouth while he wears his drab suits. That is what the public wants. To hear what he has to offer. He hasn't said a thing. Criticized yes said he do better but not HOW!!!!! Until he does, he'll lose.

He better start explaining on National TV and not some website. I haven't heard where he stood and I would rather hear it from his mouth while he wears his drab suits. That is what the public wants. To hear what he has to offer. He hasn't said a thing. Criticized yes said he do better but not HOW!!!!! Until he does, he'll lose.
I think he will pick a dynamic running mate and win, despite his "drab suits". :shock:

He better start explaining on National TV and not some website. I haven't heard where he stood and I would rather hear it from his mouth while he wears his drab suits. That is what the public wants. To hear what he has to offer. He hasn't said a thing. Criticized yes said he do better but not HOW!!!!! Until he does, he'll lose.
I think he will pick a dynamic running mate and win, despite his "drab suits". :shock:

Not bad at all, for some one who hasn't said any thing he's leading Bush in national polls and that's without a Veep! Imagine if he does say some thing..lol He'll mop the floor with Bush, I so can't wait for the debates.. That's if they can get Bush to learn how to pronounce "debate" in time ;)

He better start explaining on National TV and not some website. I haven't heard where he stood and I would rather hear it from his mouth while he wears his drab suits. That is what the public wants. To hear what he has to offer. He hasn't said a thing. Criticized yes said he do better but not HOW!!!!! Until he does, he'll lose.

Well, that is what the debates are for. In the ads I've seen on television, Bush has done nothing but criticize Kerry, so to say that Kerry has only criticized is nothing but the pot calling the kettle black in my opinion.

Furthermore, to be truly informed about a candidate, one should rely on something other than just the television.

He better start explaining on National TV and not some website. I haven't heard where he stood and I would rather hear it from his mouth while he wears his drab suits. That is what the public wants. To hear what he has to offer. He hasn't said a thing. Criticized yes said he do better but not HOW!!!!! Until he does, he'll lose.

Well, that is what the debates are for. In the ads I've seen on television, Bush has done nothing but criticize Kerry, so to say that Kerry has only criticized is nothing but the pot calling the kettle black in my opinion.

Furthermore, to be truly informed about a candidate, one should rely on something other than just the television.

The internet is also not a place to do it. so that leaves what? the papers?

Yes Bush ads have criticized Kerry. Mostly his Notorious Voting record on Defense! If anything that'll kill him. The people are getting to know Kerry and the more they get to know him, his poll numbers drop abit more. Everytime he shows his face, his numbers drop and when he isn't around, his numbers go up.

Bush is NOT conservative! He's a big spender, favors big government, is trying to make America a police state, cares nothing for the constitution, is hostile to states' rights, favors the involvement of the federal government in education (his socialistic No Child Left Behind act), has loaded his administration with hundreds of members of the ultra-leftist, pro-communist Council on Foreign Relations, is a member of the subversive Skull and Bones, is pro-UN (regardless of the fact that he allegedly 'defied' it), and once praised Woodrow Wilson. Now, tell me, how does that make him conservative? :roll:

The internet is also not a place to do it. so that leaves what? the papers?

Yes Bush ads have criticized Kerry. Mostly his Notorious Voting record on Defense! If anything that'll kill him. The people are getting to know Kerry and the more they get to know him, his poll numbers drop abit more. Everytime he shows his face, his numbers drop and when he isn't around, his numbers go up.

I was only pointing out that there are alternatives to seeing him come out and say something on television. There are places you can read about all of the candidates positions now. You are correct, the papers would be another way to find out information.

The "Notorious" Voting Record ad you speak of is highly misleading, as it shows him voting no three or four times against the SAME proposal, which obviously he couldn't do. He voted once.

I'll also point out that Bush's poll numbers drop everytime we find out more about his lies. http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm Note that the approval rating has gone from the high 80s right after 9/11 to 49%, his disapproval rating has gone from 14% to 44%.

You guys are still at it? And from the looks of things, both sides have made a little progress in increasing their debate abilities, but not much. Still to many exclaimation marks really. Everyone might as well as be shouting at each other because still, no one is gaining with the opposition.

Some more advice, for both sides:

Don't assume anything, and especially, don't assume you have any clue what the American people want.

Also, I've noticed that both sides now diddly about real economics, though I do encourage more research from both sides on the subject, because I'm feeling that everyone has something to gain in their arguements by going deeper into the subject.

And people, quit saying "something something, period." It doesn't help in getting your point across.

Now play nice. (or something)

You guys are still at it? And from the looks of things, both sides have made a little progress in increasing their debate abilities, but not much. Still to many exclaimation marks really. Everyone might as well as be shouting at each other because still, no one is gaining with the opposition.

Some more advice, for both sides:

Don't assume anything, and especially, don't assume you have any clue what the American people want.

Also, I've noticed that both sides now diddly about real economics, though I do encourage more research from both sides on the subject, because I'm feeling that everyone has something to gain in their arguements by going deeper into the subject.

And people, quit saying "something something, period." It doesn't help in getting your point across.

Now play nice. (or something)
You impart much wisdom in your posts, and it is most welcome. If one can keep an open mind as to the subject at hand, then one can acquire much knowledge. Injecting harmful emotions can and does block reason. We all can learn from each other and perhaps enrich the world in so doing.

You guys are still at it? And from the looks of things, both sides have made a little progress in increasing their debate abilities, but not much. Still to many exclaimation marks really. Everyone might as well as be shouting at each other because still, no one is gaining with the opposition.

Some more advice, for both sides:

Don't assume anything, and especially, don't assume you have any clue what the American people want.

Also, I've noticed that both sides now diddly about real economics, though I do encourage more research from both sides on the subject, because I'm feeling that everyone has something to gain in their arguements by going deeper into the subject.

And people, quit saying "something something, period." It doesn't help in getting your point across.

Now play nice. (or something)
You impart much wisdom in your posts, and it is most welcome. If one can keep an open mind as to the subject at hand, then one can acquire much knowledge. Injecting harmful emotions can and does block reason. We all can learn from each other and perhaps enrich the world in so doing.

For once CanuckHeaven, I agree with you!

Ok let me shed alittle light for those who decide to recent me. I said it once and i'll say it again GOVERNMENT WAS BUILT ON RELIGION. If anything it's your Democracy that is fueling the fire of the liberals to replace religion. It is not the increase of religion that is occuring here but the decrease. So where does that leave your theory?

Yes. And that is why we are building the foundations of a Christian Taliban, right here in this country. With Asscroft and company leading the way. You wanna live in a theocracy, move to Iran...leave our democracy alone!

You think there's a decrease in religion...what utter bullshit! I suppose that is why we are now debating adding discrimination to the very document that forms the fabric of our democracy, in the form of the Federal Marriage Amendment (not that they are gonna get the 2/3 vote needed in both Houses...)

But the very fact they are TRYING to do this speaks to a level of the force-feeding of "Christianity" to the point where people are rebelling against it, finally seeing it for what it is. It's politically-motivated fundamentalism, it is extremism, and it's no better than Islamic extremism.

Extremists of all types are natural enemies of freedom-loving people.

We get a democrat in there, the tax cuts are gone and the economy goes down, people will lose jobs.

Not what I call a good compromise!Dems will only reverse all the tax cuts Bush wasted on billionaires who didnt need one

And those billionaires will have to layoff their employees because they won't be able to afford to keep them!

"Wont be able to AFFORD keeping them" my aching ass!! More like...if they keep them, they might have to give up that yacht, and the second Beemer!! Screw 'em, they don't work anyway, why should they get everything good while the little guy constantly gets it on the chin, and gets shafted?

I'll post the economic figures tomorrow!

Yeah, like that'll prove anything when you do post those "economic fuigures" Formal Dances, since you never actually tie any of your figures to a reliable, credible source I can look up independently.

My uncle is an accountant, and he handed me a bit of sage wisdom: Figures do not le, but liars can figure. check your sources, Formal Dances. You are being lied to...and you are passing the lies on.

I'm thinking about coming in and salvaging this troll/flame/cut-and-paste/no-info fest, but I need to be able to see those pictures first, I'm getting red X's. My guess is that I've seen them before and written lengthy posts debunking them, but oh well.
Why do you call it "troll/flame/cut-and-paste/no-info fest", when there are clearly lots of reasons which I have posted from reliable sources, that should make people at least take a little notice on whether Bush should be re-elected or not?

Reliable?

www.bls.gov

There is economic figures there!

go to the top and click on get detailed statistics!

Yeah...like I'm going to trust a government source for statistics, when the entire government is controlled by people I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them!
Do you remember a certain 2003 Report on Pattern of Global Terrorism, that the State Department recently had to admit contained "serious flaws" in it's accounting methods, and the actual numbers showed terrorism at a 20-year high?

We get a democrat in there, the tax cuts are gone and the economy goes down, people will lose jobs.

Not what I call a good compromise!Dems will only reverse all the tax cuts Bush wasted on billionaires who didnt need one

And those billionaires will have to layoff their employees because they won't be able to afford to keep them!

"Wont be able to AFFORD keeping them" my aching ass!! More like...if they keep them, they might have to give up that yacht, and the second Beemer!! Screw 'em, they don't work anyway, why should they get everything good while the little guy constantly gets it on the chin, and gets shafted?

Labrador, I hope you know economics when you post this because of all the tax hikes throughout history, People got laid off. Its a known fact that this occurs and I don't want it to occur again. If we have a tax hike, I bet that we'll go back into recession for awhile. NOT stating that we will just saying that me might!

I prefer economic Prosparity. As such, we need to keep our taxes low much like they are now so people can hire and buy things that they need from Machinerary and equipment for factory and offices, to homes, appliances, and other necessities for the home.

On Tax cuts from something less partisan than a website made by Democratic Senators :

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/GIF/egtrra_distribution_cut.gif
www.TaxPolicyCenter.Org

In terms of percent,

In 2000 Married Filling Jointly :

Range .... Rate
$0-$43,850 ..... 15%
$43,850-$105,950 ..... 28%
$105,950-$161,450 ..... 31%
$161,450-$288,350 ..... 36%
$288,350- ..... 39.60%


Then, by 2004, the had changed a bit, benifiting the poorer :
$0-$14,300 ..... 10%
$14,300-$58,100 ..... 15%
$58,100-$117,250 ..... 25%
$117,250-$178,600 ..... 28%
$178,600-$319,100 ..... 33%
$319,100 ..... 35%

So basically the biggest break came for those making between $43,850 and $58,100, a solidly average amount. Total percent it went down was 13%. The richest only went down 4.6%.



That can be found at these two URL's : http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=325
and http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=144

How do you figure? 28% down to 25% is only THREE percent. Where'd ya come up with 13 percent? Whereas the wealthy got 4.6 percent...from 39.60 percent to 35 percent. You can't pull that trick on me...

If you're going to compare actual dollars on one scale, then you have to use the same yardstick when you measure the other scale. Here, though, you used one yardstick for one scale, and a different yardstick for another, to produce a result you wanted to produce, and spin the figures in a way that support your argument and agenda, but I have just pointed out the fallacy of your argument.

I'm thinking about coming in and salvaging this troll/flame/cut-and-paste/no-info fest, but I need to be able to see those pictures first, I'm getting red X's. My guess is that I've seen them before and written lengthy posts debunking them, but oh well.
Why do you call it "troll/flame/cut-and-paste/no-info fest", when there are clearly lots of reasons which I have posted from reliable sources, that should make people at least take a little notice on whether Bush should be re-elected or not?

Reliable?

www.bls.gov

There is economic figures there!

go to the top and click on get detailed statistics!

Yeah...like I'm going to trust a government source for statistics, when the entire government is controlled by people I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them!
Do you remember a certain 2003 Report on Pattern of Global Terrorism, that the State Department recently had to admit contained "serious flaws" in it's accounting methods, and the actual numbers showed terrorism at a 20-year high?

Three to one i bet you that if Gore was in office and all of this occured, you'd still be blaming the republicans. NO ONE IS AT FAULT! Also if Gore was in office you would be looking at that website.

that error wouldnt have occurred, the GOP would have had no need to show terrorism lower when in fact it was higher

We like our tax cuts! We want our tax cuts. It gives us more to spend to revitalize the economy. Without the taxcuts, our economy would still be in a slump. The Tax Cuts has brought us out of that slump and will continue to do so.

CanuckHeaven, your canadian. You have no idea what the people of the US want just like I don't know what you Canadians want. I do know that the people don't want the tax cuts to be rolled back.

Kerry is promising this which in essence would be a TAX HIKE! The ECONOMY WILL GO DOWN. In case you don't know the basics of Economics, if people have to pay more to keep a business running, they are going to CUT JOBS! Cut jobs is the last thing we want! If Jobs get CUT then the UNEMPLOYMENT RATE goes UP not DOWN! Look at the whole picture before you say that tax cuts are a bad idea!

No, they will cut jobs anyway, and ship them overseas in thier quest to continue driving their Beemers and Mercedes, while sending us poor people home to Ramen Soup, if we are lucky enough to even get that much!

How does it blow the whole argument Formal Dances? Those are the "tax cut" figures, and the date is illrelevant. Can you refute these figures?

It gives the people more hiring power. It give people an opportunity to afford homes. It give people the opportunity to invest their money wisely so they don't have to live off of social security! Frankly, I trust what Kwangistar posted. Granted its from the same site. and Yes the year is relevent!
Actually if you look at the chart I posted, it does say:

Baseline 2004, so quite relevant.

Then explain to us why we are experience rapid job growth mr. I know American Economics better than the Department Of Labor!

Really now??
At age 15, you know more about American Economics than the Department of Labor? And all because your mom has a degree in Economics? If this is so, then why do you constantly use DOL statistics to back up your whacked-out arguments?

You know, I used to live in rural Pennsylvania, near Scranton. We had Scranton Wilkes-Barre International Airport! Sorry, just 'cuz ya got a Mexican janitor, that don't cut it..."International" airport my butt.

And your mom having a degree is economics does not make you the next Walter E Williams! ( i know you'd prefer to be like him than some other economists I could name, since he shares your whacked-out political views...)

listen, the economy is not growing, at least not effectively, you cite hows its growing with factors that WE notice and effect US and i will believe you.


and his foreign policy is ludicrous, ltes bomb things because well we dont like them

kerry will get elected on about everything

If you follow this election, he hasn't done a thing. He hasn't promised how he will do things. He wants the UN to run things for the US. The US won't be an effective nation militarily because we will have to go through the UN for every little thing. Not a good way to run a nation.

He wants to raise our taxes. Not going to fly with Americans. As for bombing things, he did try to go through the same UN to get the UN to act against Hussein but France blocked us so we and our allies invoked past UN resolutions and liberated Iraq.

As for our economy, it is GROWING. 3.9% GDP 1st Quarter growth. Highest growth in years. The economy is growing. Jobs are being created. Yes we have a net loss but it is rapidly closing. Economic News is good on all fronts including manufacturing. Don't know who you've been listening too but all numbers indicate an effective growing economy.

Well, sure...the manufacturing sector is doing great, when you start counting jobs at Mickey Dees as "manufacturing jobs." Anyone out there for re-classifying ketchup as a vegetable again?

Furthermore, Kerry's rollback of taxes to the "wealthiest", would only affect 2,884,000 people. Everyone else would get their "tax cut" as proposed.

And alot of those that will lose their tax cut will have to layoff workers because they will be paying higher taxes and won't be able to afford to keep them.

No...more like they wouldn't be able to afford to keep all those yachts and Beemers IF they kept the people employed, so of course their GREED will drive them to stick it to the little guy...

He better start explaining on National TV and not some website. I haven't heard where he stood and I would rather hear it from his mouth while he wears his drab suits. That is what the public wants. To hear what he has to offer. He hasn't said a thing. Criticized yes said he do better but not HOW!!!!! Until he does, he'll lose.
I think he will pick a dynamic running mate and win, despite his "drab suits". :shock:

Not bad at all, for some one who hasn't said any thing he's leading Bush in national polls and that's without a Veep! Imagine if he does say some thing..lol He'll mop the floor with Bush, I so can't wait for the debates.. That's if they can get Bush to learn how to pronounce "debate" in time ;)

No matter WHO Kerry picks for his Veep, I'm sure that guy won't go around on the Senate floor telling Republcan Senators to "go f*** themselves!!"

How does it blow the whole argument Formal Dances? Those are the "tax cut" figures, and the date is illrelevant. Can you refute these figures?

It gives the people more hiring power. It give people an opportunity to afford homes. It give people the opportunity to invest their money wisely so they don't have to live off of social security! Frankly, I trust what Kwangistar posted. Granted its from the same site. and Yes the year is relevent!
Actually if you look at the chart I posted, it does say:

Baseline 2004, so quite relevant.

Then explain to us why we are experience rapid job growth mr. I know American Economics better than the Department Of Labor!

Really now??
At age 15, you know more about American Economics than the Department of Labor? And all because your mom has a degree in Economics? If this is so, then why do you constantly use DOL statistics to back up your whacked-out arguments?

You know, I used to live in rural Pennsylvania, near Scranton. We had Scranton Wilkes-Barre International Airport! Sorry, just 'cuz ya got a Mexican janitor, that don't cut it..."International" airport my butt.

And your mom having a degree is economics does not make you the next Walter E Williams! ( i know you'd prefer to be like him than some other economists I could name, since he shares your whacked-out political views...)

Did I ever claim that? NO I DID NOT!!! Never said I knew more about economy than the government. I wish people stop putting words into my posts because I never said that!

Why do I use the Department of Labor in my arguement? BECAUSE THEY TRACK THESE THINGS!!!! THAT IS WHY!!

Your second paragraph I have no idea why you mentioned it so I'm going to leave it alone because I have no idea why you posted it in the first place. But I will say this. International me more than one nation. That airport flies to Canada as such it is an international airport.

I'm just going by the numbers that come out! Our economy is rebounding in a way not seen in 20 years. That's a proven fact! Sorry if you didn't know that but it is the truth. Now get of my case and stop resorting to attacks on me. That is all you do. Attack people with opposite views than yours. I have my views and you yours. Accept it and stop attacking me for mine.

You guys are still at it? And from the looks of things, both sides have made a little progress in increasing their debate abilities, but not much. Still to many exclaimation marks really. Everyone might as well as be shouting at each other because still, no one is gaining with the opposition.

Some more advice, for both sides:

Don't assume anything, and especially, don't assume you have any clue what the American people want.

Also, I've noticed that both sides now diddly about real economics, though I do encourage more research from both sides on the subject, because I'm feeling that everyone has something to gain in their arguements by going deeper into the subject.

And people, quit saying "something something, period." It doesn't help in getting your point across.

Now play nice. (or something)
You impart much wisdom in your posts, and it is most welcome. If one can keep an open mind as to the subject at hand, then one can acquire much knowledge. Injecting harmful emotions can and does block reason. We all can learn from each other and perhaps enrich the world in so doing.

the only thing I can learn from conservatives and Republicans is to walk with my back against a wall, because them suckers are always trying to stab little people like me in the back!

How does it blow the whole argument Formal Dances? Those are the "tax cut" figures, and the date is illrelevant. Can you refute these figures?

It gives the people more hiring power. It give people an opportunity to afford homes. It give people the opportunity to invest their money wisely so they don't have to live off of social security! Frankly, I trust what Kwangistar posted. Granted its from the same site. and Yes the year is relevent!
Actually if you look at the chart I posted, it does say:

Baseline 2004, so quite relevant.

Then explain to us why we are experience rapid job growth mr. I know American Economics better than the Department Of Labor!

Really now??
At age 15, you know more about American Economics than the Department of Labor? And all because your mom has a degree in Economics? If this is so, then why do you constantly use DOL statistics to back up your whacked-out arguments?

You know, I used to live in rural Pennsylvania, near Scranton. We had Scranton Wilkes-Barre International Airport! Sorry, just 'cuz ya got a Mexican janitor, that don't cut it..."International" airport my butt.

And your mom having a degree is economics does not make you the next Walter E Williams! ( i know you'd prefer to be like him than some other economists I could name, since he shares your whacked-out political views...)

Did I ever claim that? NO I DID NOT!!! Never said I knew more about economy than the government. I wish people stop putting words into my posts because I never said that!

Yes, you did. Eat your own words, from a cut-and-paste....bolds my addition...

Then explain to us why we are experience rapid job growth mr. I know American Economics better than the Department Of Labor!

Tell me, Formal Dances...do you take salt with your crow?

How does it blow the whole argument Formal Dances? Those are the "tax cut" figures, and the date is illrelevant. Can you refute these figures?

It gives the people more hiring power. It give people an opportunity to afford homes. It give people the opportunity to invest their money wisely so they don't have to live off of social security! Frankly, I trust what Kwangistar posted. Granted its from the same site. and Yes the year is relevent!
Actually if you look at the chart I posted, it does say:

Baseline 2004, so quite relevant.

Then explain to us why we are experience rapid job growth mr. I know American Economics better than the Department Of Labor!

Really now??
At age 15, you know more about American Economics than the Department of Labor? And all because your mom has a degree in Economics? If this is so, then why do you constantly use DOL statistics to back up your whacked-out arguments?

You know, I used to live in rural Pennsylvania, near Scranton. We had Scranton Wilkes-Barre International Airport! Sorry, just 'cuz ya got a Mexican janitor, that don't cut it..."International" airport my butt.

And your mom having a degree is economics does not make you the next Walter E Williams! ( i know you'd prefer to be like him than some other economists I could name, since he shares your whacked-out political views...)

Did I ever claim that? NO I DID NOT!!! Never said I knew more about economy than the government. I wish people stop putting words into my posts because I never said that!

Yes, you did. Eat your own words, from a cut-and-paste....bolds my addition...

Then explain to us why we are experience rapid job growth mr. I know American Economics better than the Department Of Labor!

Tell me, Formal Dances...do you take salt with your crow?

HAHAHAHA!!! Nice Quote out of context Labrador. You did understand the whole thing! But not surprised actually. I said that to CanuckHeaven. To bold what I said since you only saw that part was Then explain to us why we are experience rapid job growth mr. I know American Economics better than the Department of Labor Never said I knew it better than they do.

Okay, let's face it. Both the Democratic and the Republican canidates have they're major downfalls, so what other option are we left with? Green Party and Independants. Personally, I think going "green" would be a nice change. Or someone that can at least understand the speeches they read (or do a better job pretending :wink: ), and no more BS!

How does it blow the whole argument Formal Dances? Those are the "tax cut" figures, and the date is illrelevant. Can you refute these figures?

It gives the people more hiring power. It give people an opportunity to afford homes. It give people the opportunity to invest their money wisely so they don't have to live off of social security! Frankly, I trust what Kwangistar posted. Granted its from the same site. and Yes the year is relevent!
Actually if you look at the chart I posted, it does say:

Baseline 2004, so quite relevant.

Then explain to us why we are experience rapid job growth mr. I know American Economics better than the Department Of Labor!

Really now??
At age 15, you know more about American Economics than the Department of Labor? And all because your mom has a degree in Economics? If this is so, then why do you constantly use DOL statistics to back up your whacked-out arguments?

You know, I used to live in rural Pennsylvania, near Scranton. We had Scranton Wilkes-Barre International Airport! Sorry, just 'cuz ya got a Mexican janitor, that don't cut it..."International" airport my butt.

And your mom having a degree is economics does not make you the next Walter E Williams! ( i know you'd prefer to be like him than some other economists I could name, since he shares your whacked-out political views...)

Did I ever claim that? NO I DID NOT!!! Never said I knew more about economy than the government. I wish people stop putting words into my posts because I never said that!

Yes, you did. Eat your own words, from a cut-and-paste....bolds my addition...

Then explain to us why we are experience rapid job growth mr. I know American Economics better than the Department Of Labor!

Tell me, Formal Dances...do you take salt with your crow?

HAHAHAHA!!! Nice Quote out of context Labrador. You did understand the whole thing! But not surprised actually. I said that to CanuckHeaven. To bold what I said since you only saw that part was Then explain to us why we are experience rapid job growth mr. I know American Economics better than the Department of Labor Never said I knew it better than they do.

Well, then you could have said it in a way that made your meaning clearer. The peoper way in which to have done this, where your context would actually have been understood was to have said,
Then explain to us why we are experiencing rapid job growth, Mr. "I know American Economics better than the Department of Labor."

The way I read it, because of the context you posted it...this is what I read: Then explain to me why we are experiencing rapid job groth, Mister. (next sentence) I know American Economics better than the Department of Labor.

A perfectly reasonable interpretation of your words as you posted them. My apologies for the out-of context, but...when you see the difference in they way you posted it, versus the proper way to post that, to get the correct message through...that you were referring to Canuck Heaven as "Mr. I know American Economics..." The quotation marks would have been helpful to set apart that you were bestowing a nickname on him, as opposed to moving to the next sentance and making a statement.

So a poorly constructed sentence, using incoorect syntax, led to my misinterpretation of your meaning.

1) Don't correct my english! Not my fault that you didn't bother to try to decipher it!

2) Grammer was fine! All the words in the proper tense!

3) I could give a damn about sentence structure. This isn't english class where everything has to be neat and proper!

4) As for the apology taking me out of context is accepted!