NationStates Jolt Archive

I can just feel it right now. Kerry is gonna win. I've lost confidence in the Republican campaign, and it seems as if Kerry has gained momentum. I've given up hope that Bush will win, and I worry that we'll elect someone everyone can hate. Goodbye, America, you were once a nice country!

AMEN! Lose faith Republicans....no point in voting. Your man has had it. Give it up.

Purly, the DNC is calling, they want to use you in an ad discouraging the other righties out there.

Who the heck wants a Lieing, Flip flopping, hippie in office?

Oh, relax PE. Even if Kerry does win (and it's odd that you claim to be more confident about this than me, who actually supports him), there's no real reason to believe that the Congress will change hands and that, even if it does, it will have a significantly Democratic majority to actually accomplish anything. Nothing will get done, as usual, and we can go through this whole rigamarole again in four years.

Better than a drunken daddy's boy whose childhood lasted 40 years!

Who the heck wants a Lieing, Flip flopping, hippie in office?

I agree. Let's get rid of Bush as soon as possible.

Damn you Berk, you beat me to it!

AMEN! Lose faith Republicans....no point in voting. Your man has had it. Give it up.

Purly, the DNC is calling, they want to use you in an ad discouraging the other righties out there.
Hey, I have nothing against the Republicans, but I have a feeling that we've lost. The Democrats are outflanking us faster than Karl Rove can outflank them.

Actually, if Bush really starts impressing people in the next few months, he'll win by a landslide. He is pretty much the only thing unifying the Democrats this year.

Hey, I have nothing against the Republicans, but I have a feeling that we've lost. The Democrats are outflanking us faster than Karl Rove can outflank them.

I know! Its even better. A discouraged Republican. You could become a poster boy!

Oh, relax PE. Even if Kerry does win (and it's odd that you claim to be more confident about this than me, who actually supports him), there's no real reason to believe that the Congress will change hands and that, even if it does, it will have a significantly Democratic majority to actually accomplish anything. Nothing will get done, as usual, and we can go through this whole rigamarole again in four years.
Still, I won't stop in my support of Bush. But I feel that, as always, the Democrats will win. They have better weapons in their arsenal, like populism, and the black vote.

Who the heck wants a Lieing, Flip flopping, hippie in office?

Really folks, this person has a point , one I certainly can't argue with..

see: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=316855

I have more hope than you do about Congress, Berkylvania. I'm thinking we'll get one of the two houses--probably the Senate--and close the gap in the House. It's plausible that if the presidential race becomes a runaway in the last couple of weeks that we could run the table, but not likely.

I'm truly curious though, PE--what is it that's changed your mind on this? Is it the Bush campaign's ineptness or is it something else?

Better than a drunken daddy's boy whose childhood lasted 40 years!
OoO! You should feel real proud of your self shouldn't you? You called a man childish and you don't have anything to back it up with!

Well people like you should be kicked out of politics.

Kerrp flip flops on his ideas. One moment he is saying he will pull troops out of the Middle east and then another he says he will put more troops into the middle east. He says he will push forward alternitive sources of energy but in the past he has voted against them.

So you really want a president like that?

OoO! You should feel real proud of your self shouldn't you? You called a man childish and you don't have anything to back it up with!

Well people like you should be kicked out of politics.

Kerrp flip flops on his ideas. One moment he is saying he will pull troops out of the Middle east and then another he says he will put more troops into the middle east. He says he will push forward alternitive sources of energy but in the past he has voted against them.

So you really want a president like that?

So isn't it childish to giggle about executing a born again Christian on death row?

See Stephistan's linked thread for flip flops....I think you'll be shocked.

Kerrp flip flops on his ideas. So you really want a president like that?

Hell no!

Lets look at the flip flopping shall we?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=316855

delete

I don't get it. Bush is ridiculed and is the whole reason the American people are being spat upon, and your worrying that Kerry will cause the world to hate us?

Really folks, this person has a point , one I certainly can't argue with..

see: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=316855
You don't want to get me started. :-) I could write up a whole long thing about how Kerry is retared and lies with examples and stuff.

I have more hope than you do about Congress, Berkylvania. I'm thinking we'll get one of the two houses--probably the Senate--and close the gap in the House. It's plausible that if the presidential race becomes a runaway in the last couple of weeks that we could run the table, but not likely.

I'm truly curious though, PE--what is it that's changed your mind on this? Is it the Bush campaign's ineptness or is it something else?
It's the Dems exploitation of populism that has me worried the most. Especially with Edwards as VP. Just who we need in the White House, a lawyer. Or as my grandfather calls them, a lier.

You don't want to get me started. :-) I could write up a whole long thing about how Kerry is retared and lies with examples and stuff.
Then do it and stop talking about it.

You don't want to get me started. :-) I could write up a whole long thing about how Kerry is retared and lies with examples and stuff.

You could? Hey, wait a sec here? You want to rid someone from politics for calling a candidate childish and you turn around and call the other candidate RETARED? Not even retarded, but retared??

Guess what, you ARE the weakest link.....goodbye.

You don't want to get me started. :-) I could write up a whole long thing about how Kerry is retared and lies with examples and stuff.

Well, as I have said many times, if in a 19 year career in the Senate, Kerry had never changed his mind on the issues, then I'd worry, the world is not static after all, why should Kerry be? Have you never changed your mind? Have time never changed? I'm 35 years old and I assure you I don't look at the world the same way I did 10 years ago, let alone 19 years ago.

I don't get it. Bush is ridiculed and is the whole reason the American people are being spat upon, and your worrying that Kerry will cause the world to hate us?
Well, maybe not the world. Then again, those with poor domestic plans don't necessarily have to be hated in the world. I think, though, it will start to sink in what Kerry did to the world about a decade from now, by putting our progress in trade back to square one.

Actually, if Bush really starts impressing people in the next few months, he'll win by a landslide. He is pretty much the only thing unifying the Democrats this year.

All right I'll bite.

How can he impress people? His speaking ability? Nu....ka....ler

The economy is starting to slow and that is what did in dear ol daddy.

"It's the economy stupid"

Ahh well. We will see in November.

Once he is gone then we can rebuild. Then of course in 10 years we will have to listen "You know it was the Shrubs economic policies that lead to this!" :rolleyes:

Then do it and stop talking about it.
If he could, he would have. Poker Faces should work across a faceless text, but oddly enough they don't.

I suppose, Purly, you'll have that chance to relate on this when Kerry's presidential term is over with. But remember, don't ever badmouth him. Its unpatriotic. :) Isn't that what we've learned these past 4 years?

It's the Dems exploitation of populism that has me worried the most. Especially with Edwards as VP. Just who we need in the White House, a lawyer. Or as my grandfather calls them, a lier.You really ought to take a closer look at Edwards' record as a lawyer before you go making generalizations like that. Sure--there are slimy lawyers out there. Many of them make up the US Congress. Doesn't mean they're all bad. Take an honest look at the kind of people that Edwards fought for--you may be surprised. I was.

And out of curiosity, what's wrong with populism? I like it--especially since populism seems to be worried about the opinions and needs of the populace.

Didn't Bush want to be a lawyer? What happened with that? Wasn't there some thing with the University of Texas......something about being rejected? Its all so foggy.

You don't want to get me started. :-) I could write up a whole long thing about how Kerry is retared and lies with examples and stuff.

Ahh but are they facts or the typical RNC bullet items?

I suppose, Purly, you'll have that chance to relate on this when Kerry's presidential term is over with. But remember, don't ever badmouth him. Its unpatriotic. :) Isn't that what we've learned these past 4 years?
I never advocated that. Some of my misguided Republican peers did, but I never did.

All right I'll bite.

How can he impress people? His speaking ability? Nu....ka....ler

The economy is starting to slow and that is what did in dear ol daddy.

"It's the economy stupid"

Ahh well. We will see in November.

Once he is gone then we can rebuild. Then of course in 10 years we will have to listen "You know it was the Shrubs economic policies that lead to this!" :rolleyes:
Eh...
I never said he would. What did I say? I said if he did start impressing us, he would win. I saw a poll that said while 57% of likely Kerry votes are voting for Kerry, the other 43% are voting against Bush. That's not a great statistic.

Eh...
I never said he would. What did I say? I said if he did start impressing us, he would win. I saw a poll that said while 57% of likely Kerry votes are voting for Kerry, the other 43% are voting against Bush. That's not a great statistic.

In the end, those 43% will always stay with Kerry, though, unless by a miracle a Third Party has a chance of winning the election (or even a state! It's been to long since an Indie won some EVs.) . Adamant partisanship can be a boon.

You really ought to take a closer look at Edwards' record as a lawyer before you go making generalizations like that. Sure--there are slimy lawyers out there. Many of them make up the US Congress. Doesn't mean they're all bad. Take an honest look at the kind of people that Edwards fought for--you may be surprised. I was.
He was a personal injury lawyer. Enough said, as I think they are some of the worst out there.

And out of curiosity, what's wrong with populism? I like it--especially since populism seems to be worried about the opinions and needs of the populace.
Populism has always been about gathering a mob of individuals and scapegoating a group. To see its effects, look at Ancient Rome. However, regardless of its effects, populism is an extremely potent weapon the Democrats always use. The Republicans have, too, but not this year. Must've been too slow.

Didn't Bush want to be a lawyer? What happened with that? Wasn't there some thing with the University of Texas......something about being rejected? Its all so foggy.
Rejected because he didn't have the scores--so Poppy and some cash got him into the Harvard MBA program.

You know, if people had been paying attention in 2000, they'd have seent he warning lights go on when Bush and the press started talking about him being the first CEO president. All it took was one look at his record as a businessman to know we were in deep shit.

I never advocated that. Some of my misguided Republican peers did, but I never did.

Yeah, you are one of the right wing people on this forum I do respect. I disagree with you on the issues of course, but respect you for presenting them the way you do.

Yeah, you are one of the right wing people on this forum I do respect. I disagree with you on the issues of course, but respect you for presenting them the way you do.
I appreciate that. Thank you.

Once he is gone then we can rebuild. Then of course in 10 years we will have to listen "You know it was the Shrubs economic policies that lead to this!" :rolleyes:


No... it will still be Clinton's fault then.... it will ALWAYS be Clinton's fault.

Blowjobs do that to the country after all.....

Damn you Berk, you beat me to it!


Hehe, I ROXXZORZZ!!!!!11!!11!!!

Then do it and stop talking about it.
I would except for a few things.
1) Its almost 11 o'clock at night and I have to go to bed soon.
2) I have typed the arguement up thin up like three times, once to in compliant to this Kidforkerry.org.
3) I want to threaten someone for there colony for NS so I got to go type that up.
4) Only got 20 minutes left and I gotta go threaten that person.
So bye...time to go kick someones ass.

He was a personal injury lawyer. Enough said, as I think they are some of the worst out there.Dammit, it's not enough said. There are good and decent personal injury lawyers out there who actually protect consumers from companies who are at times intentionally negligent because they're trying to increase their profits by the slightest fraction of a percentage point, and without lawyers on the consumers side, we'd be fucked, royally and truly.

Look at the case that Edwards' critics so disgustingly call "the Jacuzzi case" and tell me Edwards wasn't on the right side there. A little girl had her intestines sucked out by a drain the manufacturer knew was faulty and that would have only cost two bucks per unit to fix. She will live the rest of her life with a colostomy bag because some shitbag CEO decided it was too expensive to fix a known problem. So no, Purly--it's not enough said.

No... it will still be Clinton's fault then.... it will ALWAYS be Clinton's fault.

Blowjobs do that to the country after all.....

This is the longest blowjob known to man. After awhile, it just loses it's mystique, not to mention chaffing.

Still, I won't stop in my support of Bush. But I feel that, as always, the Democrats will win. They have better weapons in their arsenal, like populism, and the black vote.

Ignoring the fact that you've turned the quest for the best leader of the moment for our country into a wargame, I hope you don't stop your support of Bush. If you truly feel that he is leading this country in a direction that you want to see it go then it is not only your right, but your duty, to speak to that whenever and wherever possible. To do any less, particularly in this election year, would be...and here, I think, I use the word correctly...unpatriotic.

I would except for a few things.
1) Its almost 11 o'clock at night and I have to go to bed soon.
2) I have typed the arguement up thin up like three times, once to in compliant to this Kidforkerry.org.
3) I want to threaten someone for there colony for NS so I got to go type that up.
4) Only got 20 minutes left and I gotta go threaten that person.
So bye...time to go kick someones ass.
Don't let the bed bugs bite...study hard for the learner's permit test...

I tihnk you are right PE

The Republican party has just had too many mistakes this go round. I have never seen such a poor adminitration. I had great respect for his father back in the day. But his son really has only just f'd everything up and is letting the far right wing neo-con PNAC crew in to do their thing. It's scary and I don't really trust another skull and bones member in teh White House either but he has to have more sense than Bush jr. so I would feel safer with him at the helm this go round. Then in 4 years we will get someone who really cares about democracy and the people and not corporate interests in there.

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee :D i really do think Kerry will win.

Dammit, it's not enough said. There are good and decent personal injury lawyers out there who actually protect consumers from companies who are at times intentionally negligent because they're trying to increase their profits by the slightest fraction of a percentage point, and without lawyers on the consumers side, we'd be fucked, royally and truly.

Look at the case that Edwards' critics so disgustingly call "the Jacuzzi case" and tell me Edwards wasn't on the right side there. A little girl had her intestines sucked out by a drain the manufacturer knew was faulty and that would have only cost two bucks per unit to fix. She will live the rest of her life with a colostomy bag because some shitbag CEO decided it was too expensive to fix a known problem. So no, Purly--it's not enough said.
Of course, the victim is never satisfied with insurance rewards. Oh no. They want to get millions out of the manufacturer, or the drunk truck driver's company, or someone like that. It's never even the defendant that pays, but it's always his insurance company. I'm sorry about the girl, but accidents of this nature frequently happen in hot tubs. I don't see all of them hiring a lawyer and suing the manufacturer's asses, due to personal neglect. We also need to consider where the parents were.

Kerry and Bush are the same they both suck. They are worthless sacks of crap that wont keep there word, they say one thing and do another.

In the end, those 43% will always stay with Kerry, though, unless by a miracle a Third Party has a chance of winning the election (or even a state! It's been to long since an Indie won some EVs.) . Adamant partisanship can be a boon.
In 2000, if I were old enough, I would have voted for Nader (and been disappointed by now that I didn't vote for Gore). In 2004, I will be voting against Bush.

I appreciate that. Thank you.


And hell... I elected you the evil ....errr, sorrry ... "Conservative" King!

;)

We have our share of wingnuts 'n assholes here of all political persuasions. Those that can debate their points honestly, fairly, and politely are a rarity from behind the anonymous wall of the internet.

Ignoring the fact that you've turned the quest for the best leader of the moment for our country into a wargame, I hope you don't stop your support of Bush. If you truly feel that he is leading this country in a direction that you want to see it go then it is not only your right, but your duty, to speak to that whenever and wherever possible. To do any less, particularly in this election year, would be...and here, I think, I use the word correctly...unpatriotic.
I do believe Bush is leading us in the right direction. I really, really do. I just feel that their campaign is, while good, it's just not good enough.

Really folks, this person has a point , one I certainly can't argue with..

see: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=316855

Might as well add some appropriate music whilst reading?

http://www.geocities.com/smithdw4/Flip-Flop-and-Fly.mid

And hell... I elected you the evil ....errr, sorrry ... "Conservative" King!

;)

We have our share of wingnuts 'n assholes here of all political persuasions. Those that can debate their points honestly, fairly, and politely are a rarity from behind the anonymous wall of the internet.
Thank you.

And hell... I elected you the evil ....errr, sorrry ... "Conservative" King!

;)

We have our share of wingnuts 'n assholes here of all political persuasions. Those that can debate their points honestly, fairly, and politely are a rarity from behind the anonymous wall of the internet.

Yeah I nominated him Conservative King as well, at least he backs up his arguments and I can certainly respect that.

Of course, the victim is never satisfied with insurance rewards. Oh no. They want to get millions out of the manufacturer, or the drunk truck driver's company, or someone like that. It's never even the defendant that pays, but it's always his insurance company. I'm sorry about the girl, but accidents of this nature frequently happen in hot tubs. I don't see all of them hiring a lawyer and suing the manufacturer's asses, due to personal neglect. We also need to consider where the parents were.The girl's father was pulling her from the faulty drain, cradling her in his arms while seeing her intestines floating in the water next to her, wondering if she was going to be alive in five minutes. Jesus--ask yourself if you'd be this critical if the personal injury trial lawyer in question was a Republican running for office, say like one of the Republican Senate candidates from Florida this year. You know--Mel Martinez?

I do believe Bush is leading us in the right direction. I really, really do. I just feel that their campaign is, while good, it's just not good enough.

I know you do, PE, and that is why I respect you and your opinions.

Oh, and I'm still not convinced that Kerry will win. He's got a better shot than before, but like Opal Isle said, if Bush turns on the charm and rallies the party, the Democrats will fall apart.

The girl's father was pulling her from the faulty drain, cradling her in his arms while seeing her intestines floating in the water next to her, wondering if she was going to be alive in five minutes. Jesus--ask yourself if you'd be this critical if the personal injury trial lawyer in question was a Republican running for office, say like one of the Republican Senate candidates from Florida this year. You know--Mel Martinez?
Never heard of him. Anyhow, I don't let emotions make decisions for me, nor do I believe that the family needed millions in pain and suffering damages. I don't believe anyone deserves that much in pain and suffering. Besides, cases of intestines being pulled down drains are so frequent, how can we blame it on one manufacturer?

Never heard of him. Anyhow, I don't let emotions make decisions for me, nor do I believe that the family needed millions in pain and suffering damages. I don't believe anyone deserves that much in pain and suffering. Besides, cases of intestines being pulled down drains are so frequent, how can we blame it on one manufacturer?
Now you're just being ridiculous. Come on--lots of people are giving you credit on this thread for being a solid netizen. You need to do better than that. How much would it hurt to acknowledge the possibility--just the possibility--that Edwards wasn't an ambulance chasing scumbag?

I know you do, PE, and that is why I respect you and your opinions.

Oh, and I'm still not convinced that Kerry will win. He's got a better shot than before, but like Opal Isle said, if Bush turns on the charm and rallies the party, the Democrats will fall apart.
I guess. A lot can happen between now and November. But my hopes of Bush winning are rather, well, gloomy. We might keep Congress, but I doubt it. Whoever wins the presidency drags their party into Congress, too. But I'm sure a Republican congress will reappear in the 2006 election.

Now you're just being ridiculous. Come on--lots of people are giving you credit on this thread for being a solid netizen. You need to do better than that. How much would it hurt to acknowledge the possibility--just the possibility--that Edwards wasn't an ambulance chasing scumbag?
Oh, they all are. There's no exceptions. I've seen them in action. They all want the money. Not just personal injury, but insurance lawyers, divorce lawyers, they all do. That's why the law profession grew in the past thirty years. They have no respect anymore, for that reason. In fact, did you know that the US has 50% of the world's lawyers? What does that tell you? We're either sue-happy, a lot of people want to get rich quick, or both. There are actually more in law school now than their are lawyers in America. If so many of them want to get rich quick, how can we trust any of them?

I guess. A lot can happen between now and November. But my hopes of Bush winning are rather, well, gloomy. We might keep Congress, but I doubt it. Whoever wins the presidency drags their party into Congress, too. But I'm sure a Republican congress will reappear in the 2006 election.

PE, all Bush has to do is make one simple statement with seeming sincerity: I made a mistake. He doesn't have to even say the war in Iraq was wrong or that he wouldn't do the same again, he just has to say, "Our intelligence was faulty and we made a mistake and we will do better in the future." People would rally around him like he's the second coming if he would do this because, for some reason which completely escapes me, people still like him. They don't like his policies and they don't like feeling like they were lied to, but they're willing to forgive him all of this, overlook the economy, deal with rising health care costs, throw their unquestioning support back into the war and vote him into a second term in a landslide if he would just say this.

The irony is, he won't. I don't know if it's a pride thing or if he just doesn't realize what the fundamental disconnect is, but I firmly believe he would rather die than admit an error was made. And, if anything, that is what will cost him this election.

Oh, they all are. There's no exceptions. I've seen them in action. They all want the money. Not just personal injury, but insurance lawyers, divorce lawyers, they all do. That's why the law profession grew in the past thirty years. They have no respect anymore, for that reason. In fact, did you know that the US has 50% of the world's lawyers? What does that tell you? We're either sue-happy, a lot of people want to get rich quick, or both. There are actually more in law school now than their are lawyers in America. If so many of them want to get rich quick, how can we trust any of them?
Yeah, because all of those lawyers who go into advocacy for the indigent are in it for the cash. :roll: You've really drunk deep of the Kool-Aid on this issue Purly.

PE, all Bush has to do is make one simple statement with seeming sincerity: I made a mistake. He doesn't have to even say the war in Iraq was wrong or that he wouldn't do the same again, he just has to say, "Our intelligence was faulty and we made a mistake and we will do better in the future." People would rally around him like he's the second coming if he would do this because, for some reason which completely escapes me, people still like him. They don't like his policies and they don't like feeling like they were lied to, but they're willing to forgive him all of this, overlook the economy, deal with rising health care costs, throw their unquestioning support back into the war and vote him into a second term in a landslide if he would just say this.

The irony is, he won't. I don't know if it's a pride thing or if he just doesn't realize what the fundamental disconnect is, but I firmly believe he would rather die than admit an error was made. And, if anything, that is what will cost him this election.
There's a chance he just may say something like that. Remember when he created that panel to investigate what happened to the WMDs in Iraq? It's showing that, publically at least, he's expressing some frustration.

There's a chance he just may say something like that. Remember when he created that panel to investigate what happened to the WMDs in Iraq? It's showing that, publically at least, he's expressing some frustration.


That must be when he pretended to look around the Oval Office and said, "those WMD's must be around here somewhere!"

The US did not NEED an excuse to go into Iraq. When the Gulf War ended in 1991 it ended with a cease fire, not a peace treaty. In the cease fire was a clause that stated that ANY voilation of the agreement could result in the resumption of military action against Iraq.

Saddam violated the agreement almost immediately. The US could have invaded again right away but did not. For 12 years Saddam violated the cease fire by firing on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south.

The US did NOT need to consult the UN for permission at all, it had all the justification it needed with the cease fire agreement.

There was no "rush to war" as I have heard so often. 12 years of tolerating cease fire violations was more justification than was needed.

That the US tried to use the UN is a testament to its desire to get along with the world body, but it was not necessary.

WMD's? Who cares? The whole argument is moot and in time the cease fire agreement will be paraded out and all arguments will be silenced.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled bickering.....

The US did not NEED an excuse to go into Iraq. When the Gulf War ended in 1991 it ended with a cease fire, not a peace treaty. In the cease fire was a clause that stated that ANY voilation of the agreement could result in the resumption of military action against Iraq.

Saddam violated the agreement almost immediately. The US could have invaded again right away but did not. For 12 years Saddam violated the cease fire by firing on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south.

The US did NOT need to consult the UN for permission at all, it had all the justification it needed with the cease fire agreement.

There was no "rush to war" as I have heard so often. 12 years of tolerating cease fire violations was more justification than was needed.

That the US tried to use the UN is a testament to its desire to get along with the world body, but it was not necessary.

WMD's? Who cares? The whole argument is moot and in time the cease fire agreement will be paraded out and all arguments will be silenced.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled bickering.....

1) You'd still need to consult the UN Security Council. Go read the charter.

2) If this is the case, why did Bush not argue this with the American people and then present this case to the UN and our legislators?

1) You'd still need to consult the UN Security Council. Go read the charter.

2) If this is the case, why did Bush not argue this with the American people and then present this case to the UN and our legislators?

1. Not true...the cease fire was signed by the US and Iraq. There were no UN negotiators present.

2. Because he was playing to the UN to try to get along. The US can take ANY unilateral action it wants when an agreement has been violated, but we try to kowtow to the UN in order to "get along." Imagine the uproar that would ensue if he did invade because of a "cease fire" violation. Although perfectly justified, he would have been roasted. If it was me? THATS what I would have used and dared anyone to dispute that Saddam had NOT violated the agreement.

1. Not true...the cease fire was signed by the US and Iraq. There were no UN negotiators present.

2. Because he was playing to the UN to try to get along. The US can take ANY unilateral action it wants when an agreement has been violated, but we try to kowtow to the UN in order to "get along." Imagine the uproar that would ensue if he did invade because of a "cease fire" violation. Although perfectly justified, he would have been roasted. If it was me? THATS what I would have used and dared anyone to dispute that Saddam had NOT violated the agreement.
1) Read the charter of the United Nations which the United States wrote and signed.

2) Read the charter of the United Nations which the United States wrote and signed.

C'mon...Moore at least read the Patriot Act before speaking out against it...

1) Read the charter of the United Nations which the United States wrote and signed.

2) Read the charter of the United Nations which the United States wrote and signed.

C'mon...Moore at least read the Patriot Act before speaking out against it...

Forget the UN, the US does NOT have to abide by ANY decision of the UN. Neither does any other country. Saddam certainly didn't did he? Israel? iran? Libya? North Korea? France? Remember their nuclear testing in the 90's against UN desires? Saddam was a rouge maniac and the UN as it turns out, was in cahoots with him on the oil for food program, so the UN was unbiased and therefore hostile to the US.

The US did not NEED an excuse to go into Iraq. When the Gulf War ended in 1991 it ended with a cease fire, not a peace treaty. In the cease fire was a clause that stated that ANY voilation of the agreement could result in the resumption of military action against Iraq.

Saddam violated the agreement almost immediately. The US could have invaded again right away but did not. For 12 years Saddam violated the cease fire by firing on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south.

The US did NOT need to consult the UN for permission at all, it had all the justification it needed with the cease fire agreement.

There was no "rush to war" as I have heard so often. 12 years of tolerating cease fire violations was more justification than was needed.

That the US tried to use the UN is a testament to its desire to get along with the world body, but it was not necessary.

WMD's? Who cares? The whole argument is moot and in time the cease fire agreement will be paraded out and all arguments will be silenced.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled bickering.....

All these people who believe that might makes right need to ba taken to a secluded location and summarily shot (and yes, I'm aware of the irony )

All these people who believe that might makes right need to ba taken to a secluded location and summarily shot (and yes, I'm aware of the irony )

All those who do not believe that violations of agreements should be dealt with should be in the UN...oh wait, they already are. :rolleyes:

Forget the UN, the US does NOT have to abide by ANY decision of the UN. Neither does any other country. Saddam certainly didn't did he? He was a rouge maniac and the UN as it turns out, was in cahoots with him on the oil for food program, so the UN was unbiased and therefore hostile to the US.
That's right, the international community is definitely not worth respecting. Saddam didn't respect the world, why should we?
But I'm assuming you never did read the charter to see that you were wrong about our obligation to the UN.

That's right, the international community is definitely not worth respecting. Saddam didn't respect the world, why should we?
But I'm assuming you never did read the charter to see that you were wrong about our obligation to the UN.

Was France right when they resumed nuclear testing against UN resolutions? How odd that only the US is expected to comply.....this is enough for me. The world body does not have the US interests and violates its own agreements. One day we will have had enough of the UN and send it packing.

That's right, the international community is definitely not worth respecting. Saddam didn't respect the world, why should we?
But I'm assuming you never did read the charter to see that you were wrong about our obligation to the UN.

No, I did not read it. The UN has no authority over me and therefore anything it says or does is anathema to my beliefs.

john kerry has less poll support coming out of the convention as far as leads on republicans go than gore did in 2000, clinton did in 96, than clinton did in 92, and even less than dukakis had in 88 and he lost big time. kerry has the weakest post convention lead since 1984----mondale when he ran against reagan and the weakest convention bounce since 1972 ( mcgovern running against nixon) i am assuming then that this feeling that kerry has it in the bag is purely on faith then?

I am voting for bush, but I think you are wrong. Kerry will not win.... not Bush might win but Kerry wont.

No, I did not read it. The UN has no authority over me and therefore anything it says or does is anathema to my beliefs.
Most of the reason the UN doesn't work too well is explained by this post. I don't agree with any country's ignorance of UN resolutions, however I don't justify the US's ignorance of the UN charter by citing examples of other country's igronarce. By the way, incase you're too lazy to Google: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346194

glad to see you , another conservative ( i hope) to compete with the dominant leftism of these forums

It's always darkest before the storm. Just remember, the people don't literally elect presidents, the Electoral College does. And I'm willing to bet the Electoral College will re-elect Bush. I don't like either one of them, too bad another party can't come up with a decent candidate, I'd vote outside of my registered party with a clear conscience and without hesitating. In this election, I think everyone will INDIVIDUALLY be voting for who they think is the lesser of two evils. And I believe the vast majority of people who will vote are 30-yrs old and older... Bush will win the day. Either way, we'll just end up hearing Side B of the record for 4 more years.

No, I did not read it. The UN has no authority over me and therefore anything it says or does is anathema to my beliefs.Well technically, since the US is a charter member of the United Nations Treaty Organization, and the US Constitution states that any treaties entered into shall be considered the law of the land, and assuming you're a citizen of the US, then theoretically you could be legally under the authority of the UN. Now since the US has veto power, it can effectively block any power grab attempt by the UN, assuming it had any desire to grab power inside the US in the first place, so in practice you're probably not in any danger. But theoretically, you could be under the UN's power at some point.

Most of the reason the UN doesn't work too well is explained by this post. I don't agree with any country's ignorance of UN resolutions, however I don't justify the US's ignorance of the UN charter by citing examples of other country's igronarce. By the way, incase you're too lazy to Google: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346194

Oh, but you want to hold the US to a higher standard...sorry, what is good for the goose....

Was France right when they resumed nuclear testing against UN resolutions? How odd that only the US is expected to comply.....this is enough for me. The world body does not have the US interests and violates its own agreements. One day we will have had enough of the UN and send it packing.

Ah, so someone across the street from you steals a car,and it's okay for you to do it too? Other people's misdeeds justifies your own? That's pathetic.

his poll numbers are not great. but kerry is really it pitiful shape also poll wise. this is a problem for both of them. but anyone who says , oh, this one or that one will win must be a partisan of fierce nature.

Well technically, since the US is a charter member of the United Nations Treaty Organization, and the US Constitution states that any treaties entered into shall be considered the law of the land, and assuming you're a citizen of the US, then theoretically you could be legally under the authority of the UN. Now since the US has veto power, it can effectively block any power grab attempt by the UN, assuming it had any desire to grab power inside the US in the first place, so in practice you're probably not in any danger. But theoretically, you could be under the UN's power at some point.

Nah....not going to happen. No US citizen can be held by another country unless extradited by treaty. Are they going to extridite me to new York? LOL Is the UN a country?

wrong behavior cannot be justified by citing someone elses wrong behavior

Oh, but you want to hold the US to a higher standard...sorry, what is good for the goose....
Americans criticize Europeans all the time about worrying too much about American politics, but now an American (I assume) is criticize an American about his concerns with American politics...unbelievable...
Why should I worry about France? They don't concern me. They don't define the right/wrong for the United States. The United States agreed to the UN Charter (so did France, but I'm not concerned with them, remember?) and we should hold ourselves to our word. We're trying to hold Iraq to their word (they did sign to the UN Charter and agree to any resolution they passed by joining...) (joining the UN is indeed optional)

reasons i distrust the un:
1) the sit around on there ass mentality when millions were killed by pol pot and also in haiti
2) the unenforced resolutions
3) the oil for food scandal
4) the strange tyranny like system of powerful nations in the security counsel
5) the idea that globalization of government is actualy a good thing

john kerry has less poll support coming out of the convention as far as leads on republicans go than gore did in 2000, clinton did in 96, than clinton did in 92, and even less than dukakis had in 88 and he lost big time. kerry has the weakest post convention lead since 1984----mondale when he ran against reagan and the weakest convention bounce since 1972 ( mcgovern running against nixon) i am assuming then that this feeling that kerry has it in the bag is purely on faith then?Nah--it's based on the poll numbers that show Kerry has a much better favorable/unfavorable split than Bush, he has a solid lead now and has much firmer support from his base than Bush has from his, that he has a solid lead among independents now and that in close races, uncommitted voters almost never go for the incumbent, statistically speaking. That said--Kerry doesn't have it in the bag, but I'd rather be in his shoes than in Bush's right now.

glad to see you , another conservative ( i hope) to compete with the dominant leftism of these forums

Oooo, I feel so sorry for the oppressed conservative minority. The media is lefty, the internet is lefty, universities are dominated by lefty professors...it a wonder any conservatives are ever elected...waaaaaaaaaaaaaa! :(

Americans criticize Europeans all the time about worrying too much about American politics, but now an American (I assume) is criticize an American about his concerns with American politics...unbelievable...
Why should I worry about France? They don't concern me. They don't define the right/wrong for the United States. The United States agreed to the UN Charter (so did France, but I'm not concerned with them, remember?) and we should hold ourselves to our word. We're trying to hold Iraq to their word (they did sign to the UN Charter and agree to any resolution they passed by joining...) (joining the UN is indeed optional)

Why should we worry about the UN? The UN is a conglomorate of political intrigue and has outlived it's usefulness. Also you might want to read the UN resolutions regarding Iraq...they authorize use of force by any member state if Iraq failed to comply. They failed...we acted.

Doesnt Matter what the US does they will always be hated... Ive never quite understood it. The funniest thing ever was seeing in a French War Museum "United States again gets involved in another countries affairs causing thousands of deaths." Then in the next panel over a sign reads "The United States fails to come to the Aid of opressed people causing thousands of deaths." Then going and visiting a WW2 memorial and seeing the British, Canadian, Russian, and French Flags flying high with no US flag in sight. So it really doesnt matter what we do or what president we have the world will hate us, and im afraid with kerry that he try to please the world instead of doing whats best for the country

I'm unhijacking this thread. I created a new thread to talk about the UN. If you want my responses to your ignorant arrogance about the US and the UN, look here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346194).

People. Do the US and the world a favor and vote for Kerry. Bush could care less about you unless you have lotsa money and you are giving it to him to help him steal another election.

As a Canadian i'm hoping Kerry will win because he (as far as the canadian media covers it.) Kerry sounds like he'll be more friendly to Canada than Bush has been(tarrifs), and more resecptful of UN jugdements.

but anyway check this out http://jibjab.com/

Nah....not going to happen. No US citizen can be held by another country unless extradited by treaty. Are they going to extridite me to new York? LOL Is the UN a country?


Good point!! Just like the same people who want the UN to oversee our elections. I think these people might need to put the pipe down for a while.

I can just feel it right now. Kerry is gonna win. I've lost confidence in the Republican campaign, and it seems as if Kerry has gained momentum. I've given up hope that Bush will win, and I worry that we'll elect someone everyone can hate. Goodbye, America, you were once a nice country!

Oh, God, I hope Kerry doesn't win. Don't get me wrong, Bush disgusts me, too, but Kerry is just...ugh (shudder).

Too bad third party candidates never stand a chance in hell. (sigh) :(

Hey Mr. Kerry, Al Gore called, he wants his personality back!

Hey Mr. Kerry, Al Gore called, he wants his personality back!

Lol :D

I think Bush's main problem is that he is even dividing his own party

Yeah, because all of those lawyers who go into advocacy for the indigent are in it for the cash. :roll: You've really drunk deep of the Kool-Aid on this issue Purly.
Actually, they all are. Real estate, corporate law, environmental law, etc. The only two that I see have a shred of decency left are prosecutors, defense lawyers, and patent lawyers. Believe me, I've worked with these people. Now I know you're a lawyer yourself, so I'm not making any judgements. However, you better work for one decent firm, because quite a few of them have pigs at the top. And please, don't be a personal injury or corporate lawyer.

Oh, God, I hope Kerry doesn't win. Don't get me wrong, Bush disgusts me, too, but Kerry is just...ugh (shudder).

Too bad third party candidates never stand a chance in hell. (sigh) :(
The third party candidates are real kooks. I guess, however, they can get away with it, because they'll never win. However, Third Parties have gotten 5% of the popular vote before, which makes them eligible for federal matching funds in the next presidential election.

Both Bush and Kerry bother me, I have no clue who I'm voting for. I may put Mickey mouse on the ballot at this point.

bump

Actually, they all are. Real estate, corporate law, environmental law, etc. The only two that I see have a shred of decency left are prosecutors, defense lawyers, and patent lawyers. Believe me, I've worked with these people. Now I know you're a lawyer yourself, so I'm not making any judgements. However, you better work for one decent firm, because quite a few of them have pigs at the top. And please, don't be a personal injury or corporate lawyer.Where on earth did you get the idea that I'm a lawyer? :D

I'm far from it. I enjoy reading Supreme Court decisions, but that's just because I'm weird. I'm a poet with a fellowship at Stanford and I've got a side gig working at a brewery--just started thet one. I do have the student loan debt of most new lawyers, though, so maybe that's where you got the idea. :D

Where on earth did you get the idea that I'm a lawyer? :D

I'm far from it. I enjoy reading Supreme Court decisions, but that's just because I'm weird. I'm a poet with a fellowship at Stanford and I've got a side gig working at a brewery--just started thet one. I do have the student loan debt of most new lawyers, though, so maybe that's where you got the idea. :D
You told me you were a member of the ACLU, which, I believe, is an organization of lawyers. It's good, btw, that you work at a brewery. Because of your product, a brewer is probably the most respected profession in America :D.

Hey Mr. Kerry, Al Gore called, he wants his personality back!

Hey President Bush, America's on the phone. They want their country back.

You told me you were a member of the ACLU, which, I believe, is an organization of lawyers. It's good, btw, that you work at a brewery. Because of your product, a brewer is probably the most respected profession in America :D.
Ah--to be a member of the ACLU, all you have to do is sign up. I did that and I gave them a few bucks to subsidize their work, mainly because they defend everyone, even those I vehemently disagree with. And let me tell you--it was tough to keep doing it when they defended both Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay last year.

Ah--to be a member of the ACLU, all you have to do is sign up. I did that and I gave them a few bucks to subsidize their work, mainly because they defend everyone, even those I vehemently disagree with. And let me tell you--it was tough to keep doing it when they defended both Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay last year.
Oh, I didn't know that. I thought it was just a federation of lawyers, not a non profit lawfirm.

The lawyers are actually more of a loose association--people who have donated time and energy to take on cases that most people can't afford to fight or that tread upon what they consider constitutionally dangerous ground. They do a lot of First Amendment and Right to Privacy cases.

The funny thing is that what most critics call them out on is what draws me to them--their willingness to fight for unsavory characters. They defended the Nazis right to march in Skokie Illinois. They've defended the Klan more than once. They've defended NAMBLA's right to speech, though not their practices. And like I mentioned above, they've defended DeLay and Limbaugh. They're the living embodiment of the saying "I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."

The lawyers are actually more of a loose association--people who have donated time and energy to take on cases that most people can't afford to fight or that tread upon what they consider constitutionally dangerous ground. They do a lot of First Amendment and Right to Privacy cases.

The funny thing is that what most critics call them out on is what draws me to them--their willingness to fight for unsavory characters. They defended the Nazis right to march in Skokie Illinois. They've defended the Klan more than once. They've defended NAMBLA's right to speech, though not their practices. And like I mentioned above, they've defended DeLay and Limbaugh. They're the living embodiment of the saying "I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."
They sound almost as if they're a little too convinced about the First Amendment. I've just never seen such zeal to defend it.

Mr Bush is very incompetent. He will not allow stem cell research to excel cause of his religious beliefs which is wrong. He is deciding by that very decision who is going to die.

P.S. Reason why I call him Mr. Bush is because he is not our president.

They sound almost as if they're a little too convinced about the First Amendment. I've just never seen such zeal to defend it.
Think of them this way--they are to the First Amendment what the NRA is to the Second Amendment. A bit overzealous at times perhaps, but the first vigorous line of defense.

P.S. Reason why I call him Mr. Bush is because he is not our president.

Err....believe what you want...

Err....believe what you want...
I am not sure if you noticed but he wasn't elected into office by the american people.

I am not sure if you noticed but he wasn't elected into office by the american people.
Gore got a half a million more votes than George W. Bush, but in the electoral college system, some people's votes are worth more (there's an article about it in the "news" section at http://life.short.be/). But either way, Bush won the electoral college and that is what matters in our messed up system. (Psst, I'm a liberal and will be voting for Kerry.)

Please God, don't let this thread turn into another one of those Bush was elected/No he wasn't/he is teh prezzzzznit/u r teh dumb threads.

It's the Dems exploitation of populism that has me worried the most. Especially with Edwards as VP. Just who we need in the White House, a lawyer. Or as my grandfather calls them, a lier.

Well then...instead of lamenting our impending "disaster"...mobilize you and you're Republican friends to get out there and vote. Kerry's bounce after the convention was minimal, and a half decent GOP convention could probably boost Bush well ahead assuming a disaster in Iraq or with the economy does not occur...

If Kerry wins the race, he must get nearly ALL the battleground states...if Bush wins one battleground state he lost in 2000 (mainly of the rust belt)... he's expected to win easily... honestly, Bush is in a better position if percentages tick one way or the other...so Reps. Get out there and vote..

He was a personal injury lawyer. Enough said, as I think they are some of the worst out there.

. . .



No, not enough said. Why do you think that personal injury lawyers are lower than the lawyers who defend irresponsible companies and individuals from having to pay for injuries they've caused?

yeah like I want Kerry, some little rich boy who has nothing in common with me or the other middle class people in office just because he looks like Herman Munster and has 3 purple hearts, big freakin deal my grandfather has a purple heart and Ive got one medal myself. Who gives a damn! Kerry is a moron who does not know what he stands for except he has 3 purple hearts and doesnt like bush.

For the first time ever there will be election observers from Europe next time to check if Bush is cheating this time also.

yeah like I want Kerry, some little rich boy who has nothing in common with me or the other middle class people in office just because he looks like Herman Munster and has 3 purple hearts, big freakin deal my grandfather has a purple heart and Ive got one medal myself. Who gives a damn! Kerry is a moron who does not know what he stands for except he has 3 purple hearts and doesnt like bush.

Did you read your own post? He has at least one thing in common with you: he is a decorated veteran. Bush otoh is a coward who sends other people to die for a country that he could not be bothered to risk his own life for.

And Bush has flip-flopped many many times ... just read the other thread here that describes a few of them.

JOhn KErry johN EdwaRDs

-Stands on the soap box-

Ok people.

I am about as anti-shrub as you can get.

I have a request.

Can we stop complaining about the last election. It does not matter what happened as it will not change the last 4 years.

It's history now.

Focus on the now as in why he should not be re-elected.

I yield the soap box.

-Stands on the soap box-

Ok people.

I am about as anti-shrub as you can get.

I have a request.

Can we stop complaining about the last election. It does not matter what happened as it will not change the last 4 years.

It's history now.

Focus on the now as in why he should not be re-elected.

I yield the soap box.

Whoa...I didn't know Al Gore was on these forums...

the polls do not back up the assertion that mr. kerry has it in the bag by any means. he had the weakest poll bounce from his convention since george mcgovern in 1972 ( who was beaten in a landslide by richard nixon- a republican seeking reelection). he also has the weakest post convention lead since walter mondale in 1984( who was beaten even worse by ronald reagan-a republican seeking reelection. to say, "i can feel it" or "he's gonna win" about Kerry is purely an emotional wish on the part of the person saying it at this point.

the polls do not back up the assertion that mr. kerry has it in the bag by any means. he had the weakest poll bounce from his convention since george mcgovern in 1972 ( who was beaten in a landslide by richard nixon- a republican seeking reelection). he also has the weakest post convention lead since walter mondale in 1984( who was beaten even worse by ronald reagan-a republican seeking reelection. to say, "i can feel it" or "he's gonna win" about Kerry is purely emotional wish on the part of the person saying it at this point.
There are also some numbers saying that no incumbent has ever been re-elected with an approval rating as low as Bush's...

that is true also, but the fact is the two candidates are within 5 points of each other in most polls. the numbers reflect bad y on mr. bush ( they are low), and mr. kerry( he isnt ahead like he should be).

Dammit, it's not enough said. There are good and decent personal injury lawyers out there who actually protect consumers from companies who are at times intentionally negligent because they're trying to increase their profits by the slightest fraction of a percentage point, and without lawyers on the consumers side, we'd be fucked, royally and truly.

Look at the case that Edwards' critics so disgustingly call "the Jacuzzi case" and tell me Edwards wasn't on the right side there. A little girl had her intestines sucked out by a drain the manufacturer knew was faulty and that would have only cost two bucks per unit to fix. She will live the rest of her life with a colostomy bag because some shitbag CEO decided it was too expensive to fix a known problem. So no, Purly--it's not enough said.


I am voting for Bush and Cheney but Edwards is a good man. So what if he made his money the way he did. I would vote democrat if he was the top man on the ticket and not Kerry.

There are also some numbers saying that no incumbent has ever been re-elected with an approval rating as low as Bush's...

Thats true...but there are also some numbers that say no challenger has ever won with numbers like Kerry's. Plus the Republican convention has not happened yet...so lets watch, shall we? ;)

Mr Bush is very incompetent. He will not allow stem cell research to excel cause of his religious beliefs which is wrong. He is deciding by that very decision who is going to die.

P.S. Reason why I call him Mr. Bush is because he is not our president.

I disagree with President Bush's position on stem cell research. But saying he is deciding who is going to die is illogical bullshit. There may be cures from stem cell research, but it's possible that there won't be. We just don't know.

P.S. "Mister" is a perfectly acceptable form of address toward the President of the United States. So, you'll have to try harder to disrespect him.

Thats true...but there are also some numbers that say no challenger has ever won with numbers like Kerry's. Plus the Republican convention has not happened yet...so lets watch, shall we? ;)

True. No matter who wins, this election is going to break some long-standing 'rules' to judge who will win by, so I'd say this is a fair game election. Mind you, I'd rather Kerry than Bush, but let's see how this will play out. The election is already one of the most interesting I've seen in many years.

True. No matter who wins, this election is going to break some long-standing 'rules' to judge who will win by, so I'd say this is a fair game election. Mind you, I'd rather Kerry than Bush, but let's see how this will play out. The election is already one of the most interesting I've seen in many years.

True enough, but I really think Bush is going to win because Kerry is running on nothing but events that happened over 30 years ago. Most people here will vote for him because he is NOT Bush. Thats a stupid way to pick the most powerful man in the world. Afterall, he cannot change anything really.

Since Kerry is not running on his 19 years in the Senate, it is obviously a weakness and the Rebuplicans will hit him on that, and there are inconsistancies with his Vietnam record and statements that will come to light...some already are.

True enough, but I really think Bush is going to win because Kerry is running on nothing but events that happened over 30 years ago. Most people here will vote for him because he is NOT Bush. Thats a stupid way to pick the most powerful man in the world. Afterall, he cannot change anything really.


However, bush is running not on what he can accomplish in the future, but on what he has done. He's hardly laid out any new policies, anything to push for reelection with. In essence he is asking people to reelect him based on what he has done on the last four years and not on what hre will do for them in the next four years, which is a large break from previous reelection bids and also comparable to what Kerry is doing; Running on the past.

I disagree with President Bush's position on stem cell research. But saying he is deciding who is going to die is illogical bullshit. There may be cures from stem cell research, but it's possible that there won't be. We just don't know.

P.S. "Mister" is a perfectly acceptable form of address toward the President of the United States. So, you'll have to try harder to disrespect him.

Sorry but look into the research that is going on.

It's no longer a question of if; it's when.

Luckily the EU will keep going on the research and will make the discovories.

So is calling him the shrub disrespectful enough?

Whoa...I didn't know Al Gore was on these forums...

Hmmm what word am I thinking now Opal? ;)

However, bush is running not on what he can accomplish in the future, but on what he has done. He's hardly laid out any new policies, anything to push for reelection with. In essence he is asking people to reelect him based on what he has done on the last four years and not on what hre will do for them in the next four years, which is a large break from previous reelection bids and also comparable to what Kerry is doing; Running on the past.

Actually I have heard Bush lay out some plans for the future. To be fair I have heard kerry say what he would do too....all social plans that will cost a fortune with no plan on how to pay for them. He has stated that the first thing he will do is create a national healthcare system. What to hazard a guess how he will pay for that? Raise taxes...THATS what Democrats do...they think they can throw money at every problem and it will go away.

Kerry has said NOTHING about what he did for the past 30 years. Bush has only a 4 year window to work with....so who is more relevant to todays world?

Kerry has said NOTHING about what he did for the past 30 years. Bush has only a 4 year window to work with....so who is more relevant to todays world?
Huh?

Huh?


Yeah....he is running his campaign on his service in Vietnam....1968-1969. Nothing about his Senate record....but that will be coming out soon. ;)

Who the heck wants a Lieing, Flip flopping, hippie in office?
Dude, George Bush isn't a hippie.

Hey, I have nothing against the Republicans, but I have a feeling that we've lost. The Democrats are outflanking us faster than Karl Rove can outflank them.
It's Karl Rove, singlehandedly fighting against those goddam unpatriotic Democrats! Could be a good action movie.

It's the Dems exploitation of populism that has me worried the most. Especially with Edwards as VP. Just who we need in the White House, a lawyer. Or as my grandfather calls them, a lier.
I think that the Republicans have the biggest history of dishonest populism. They claimed a monopoly on morality and religious faith to get the poor Southern vote. All the while they were screwing those voters economically with their deals with big business.

so the UN was unbiased and therefore hostile to the US.
Dude, do you read what you write? There is a hugely obvious contradiction here.

I think that the Republicans have the biggest history of dishonest populism. They claimed a monopoly on morality and religious faith to get the poor Southern vote. All the while they were screwing those voters economically with their deals with big business.
This year, however, it's something we lack. BTW, I didn't say which brand of populism is more honest. In fact, since the last great political dent made by populism was in the 1890s, since then, it can be argued that all populism is dishonest. The thing, however, is that Democrats have a history using it. Kerry seems to do a better job courting the farm vote. The Democrat's traditional alliance with labor unions and black voters also gives them an edge. And of course, as loony as it sounds, voters love more social programs and deeper tax cuts. Kerry has promised that, too.

Well then...instead of lamenting our impending "disaster"...mobilize you and you're Republican friends to get out there and vote. Kerry's bounce after the convention was minimal, and a half decent GOP convention could probably boost Bush well ahead assuming a disaster in Iraq or with the economy does not occur...

If Kerry wins the race, he must get nearly ALL the battleground states...if Bush wins one battleground state he lost in 2000 (mainly of the rust belt)... he's expected to win easily... honestly, Bush is in a better position if percentages tick one way or the other...so Reps. Get out there and vote..
I can't mobilize anyone. I'm 15, and I live in a town filled with Democrats. I even live in the Dems' most reliable blue state, New York.

with kerry that he try to please the world instead of doing whats best for the country
You say it as if the two are mutually exclusive. Respecting the world is good for America.

No, not enough said. Why do you think that personal injury lawyers are lower than the lawyers who defend irresponsible companies and individuals from having to pay for injuries they've caused?
They're all low lifes. Personal injury, corporate lawyers, accounting, securities, tax, environmental, everyone. The only lawyers that still command some respect are prosecutors and public defenders.

:headbang:

They're all low lifes. Personal injury, corporate lawyers, accounting, securities, tax, environmental, everyone. The only lawyers that still command some respect are prosecutors and public defenders.

Thats a great idea because their all lowlifes and therefore arn't needed. Therefore we can accused people of crimes and simply give people charges that make no sence and probalbly arn't even true becuase we simply don't like them, let them defend themselves and ... oh wait thats against the constitution isn't it DUMBASS.

NO wait... god clear them if they are pure.

:headbang:

Well then...instead of lamenting our impending "disaster"...mobilize you and you're Republican friends to get out there and vote. Kerry's bounce after the convention was minimal, and a half decent GOP convention could probably boost Bush well ahead assuming a disaster in Iraq or with the economy does not occur...

If Kerry wins the race, he must get nearly ALL the battleground states...if Bush wins one battleground state he lost in 2000 (mainly of the rust belt)... he's expected to win easily... honestly, Bush is in a better position if percentages tick one way or the other...so Reps. Get out there and vote..
You're working on the assumption that Bush will carry all the states he did last time--that's far from certain. Hell, the last poll I saw had Kerry/Edwards within two points in Tennessee. Tennessee! Forget battleground states--Bush is having problems in states that theoretically should be locks for him.

Bush lay out some plans for the future ... with no plan on how to pay for them.
One word: Deficit

This should promise Kerry a traditionally Red state.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-10-kerry-nuke-waste_x.htm

Yeah....he is running his campaign on his service in Vietnam....1968-1969. Nothing about his Senate record....but that will be coming out soon. ;)
I understood that you think he isn't talking about his senate record. That's the same dribble all you people spit out. The part that didn't make sense what the part about Bush only have a four year window. Explain.

This should promise Kerry a traditionally Red state.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-10-kerry-nuke-waste_x.htm
Nevada's a really interesting situation, its actually gained jobs (even in manufacturing) during the Bush Presidency and has been more prosperous than the rest of the country. In the old Dem. stronghold, Las Vegas, Republicans have gained ground but statewide its still pretty even (Bush has a slight lead).

That may be true Kwangistar, but never underestimate the power of a nuclear waste facility to piss an electorate off. Yucca Mountain is a stone around Bush's neck in Nevada--I'm not saying he won't be able to win the state, but it won't be easy for him to do so.

I understood that you think he isn't talking about his senate record. That's the same dribble all you people spit out. The part that didn't make sense what the part about Bush only have a four year window. Explain.

Thats right....ALL we hear from Kerry is about Vietnam....I want him to explain WHAT he has done in the Senate that qualifies him to be president. Bush is campaining on his record, why is Kerry not?

Thats right....ALL we hear from Kerry is about Vietnam....I want him to explain WHAT he has done in the Senate that qualifies him to be president. Bush is campaining on his record, why is Kerry not?
Kerry is campaigning on his record--has been from the begining, not that the right-wing media has made any mention of it. Kerry has made a lot of noise about his support of the Balanced Budget Amendment and Gramm-Rudman in the 80s, about his role in breaking open the BCCI scandal and the subsequent Iran-Contra scandal, and about his work with John McCain on the POW situation in Vietnam--that's just for starters.

The other thing Kerry is campaigning on is his vision for the future. That dominates his campaigning, both in his commercials and in his personal appearances. Now you may disagree with what he'd like to do--that's your prerogative--but it's intellectually and factually dishonest to suggest that Kerry is only mentioning Vietnam and nothing else. If the Vietnam story has been dominating lately, it's because groups like Swift boat veterans against the truth have been keeping it there.

All I am gonna say is this, Congrats if you think Kerry is going to win, but I'm going Bush, I would rather go on a course charted by Bush, however crazy than give into Kerrys oh lets feel good attitude. Just my opinion if you don't like it, the little man says it all :headbang:

Kerry is campaigning on his record--has been from the begining, not that the right-wing media has made any mention of it. Kerry has made a lot of noise about his support of the Balanced Budget Amendment and Gramm-Rudman in the 80s, about his role in breaking open the BCCI scandal and the subsequent Iran-Contra scandal, and about his work with John McCain on the POW situation in Vietnam--that's just for starters.

The other thing Kerry is campaigning on is his vision for the future. That dominates his campaigning, both in his commercials and in his personal appearances. Now you may disagree with what he'd like to do--that's your prerogative--but it's intellectually and factually dishonest to suggest that Kerry is only mentioning Vietnam and nothing else. If the Vietnam story has been dominating lately, it's because groups like Swift boat veterans against the truth have been keeping it there.

Really? I have not seen ONE thing that he has said he did in the Senate...and I HAVE been looking because I am interested.

His vision for the future is scary....he will raise taxes through the roof to pay for it and the economy will stall. National healthcare is NOT the most pressing issue we are facing and thats what he has said he will commit to first....how will he pay for such a thing? Further....why should we allow the government to provide our healthcare. Ever been to a VA hospital? Trust me...as a disabled veteran...you don't WANT the government providing your healthcare.

I can just feel it right now.
So can I and what a great feeling!!

Kerry is gonna win.
I couldn't agree more!! :)

I've lost confidence in the Republican campaign,
And you are not alone apparently!!

and it seems as if Kerry has gained momentum.
He gets by with a little help from his friends?

I've given up hope that Bush will win,
Well he really doesn't deserve to win, and the people of America do!!

and I worry that we'll elect someone everyone can hate.
That already happened in 2000? :mad:

Goodbye, America, you were once a nice country!
Hello America, I am glad you are coming back to greatness!! :)

It's out there, Biff--I know because I had the same questions about his record. I was always going to vote for the Democratic nominee, but Kerry wasn't my first choice. When it became obvious he would be the nominee, I wanted to know what he had done, and it was in his first set of campaign commercials--the biographical ones that also deal with his military record.

As to the second part of your post, I'll just say this. In terms of the overall health of the economy, healthcare reform is one of the most pressing needs. It's the largest single non-labor cost for any small to medium sized business, and when you factor in that the nation's largest employer--Wal-Mart--often provides aid and forms for their employers to get state medical benefits assistance, you're looking at an even bigger problem.

Kerry's tax plan has two major components--roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans to the same levels they were at when Clinton was in office (and the economy was booming) and close the loopholes that allow companies to make money in the US and divert profits offshore to avoid paying taxes. Neither of those will stall the economy, and should, in fact, boost it.

It's out there, Biff--I know because I had the same questions about his record. I was always going to vote for the Democratic nominee, but Kerry wasn't my first choice. When it became obvious he would be the nominee, I wanted to know what he had done, and it was in his first set of campaign commercials--the biographical ones that also deal with his military record.

As to the second part of your post, I'll just say this. In terms of the overall health of the economy, healthcare reform is one of the most pressing needs. It's the largest single non-labor cost for any small to medium sized business, and when you factor in that the nation's largest employer--Wal-Mart--often provides aid and forms for their employers to get state medical benefits assistance, you're looking at an even bigger problem.

Kerry's tax plan has two major components--roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans to the same levels they were at when Clinton was in office (and the economy was booming) and close the loopholes that allow companies to make money in the US and divert profits offshore to avoid paying taxes. Neither of those will stall the economy, and should, in fact, boost it.

I looked at Kerry's Senate record...he really did nothing of significance. He renamed a few federal buildings.

Raising the taxes on the wealthiest 2% might be the popular thing to do, but that will NOT be enough to cover what he wants to do. EVERYONES taxes will go up. Want to make Wal-Mart come around...make what they do illegal...they should already be sanctioned for hiring illegals AND not paying overtime. They are an aggregious violator of labor laws and I refuse to go into their stores.

I looked at Kerry's Senate record...he really did nothing of significance. He renamed a few federal buildings.

Raising the taxes on the wealthiest 2% might be the popular thing to do, but that will NOT be enough to cover what he wants to do. EVERYONES taxes will go up. Want to make Wal-Mart come around...make what they do illegal...they should already be sanctioned for hiring illegals AND not paying overtime. They are an aggregious violator of labor laws and I refuse to go into their stores.

You must be kidding. here is a link where you can check out his voting record:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103

Bottom line: Kerry was involved in the passing of 57 bills, and voted on many more.

Guess how many Dick Cheney was invoved in?

If you said 2 you would be correct. Bush, of course, was involved only in destroying Texas's economy at the time.

Dang Repugnicans.

Thats right....ALL we hear from Kerry is about Vietnam....I want him to explain WHAT he has done in the Senate that qualifies him to be president. Bush is campaining on his record, why is Kerry not?

Funny you look at Bush's ads and listen to his stump speeches, all I hear is "Kerry Bad!" "Kerry Flip Flop!"

What accomplishments has Bush touted in his ads? Let's see....there was the ad claiming Kerry is against the military (lie), the one where they lied about him voting to raise taxes, the one where they lie about his voting record....hmmm was there any ones that talked about Bush's record? Oh yeah, the one where he shows 9/11 and talks about "values".

Wow that Bush sure talks a lot about his "record".

Funny you look at Bush's ads and listen to his stump speeches, all I hear is "Kerry Bad!" "Kerry Flip Flop!"

What accomplishments has Bush touted in his ads? Let's see....there was the ad claiming Kerry is against the military (lie), the one where they lied about him voting to raise taxes, the one where they lie about his voting record....hmmm was there any ones that talked about Bush's record? Oh yeah, the one where he shows 9/11 and talks about "values".

Wow that Bush sure talks a lot about his "record".

Well...we KNOW Bush...we see him every day and what he does is an open book. Kerry is an unknown entity and since HE is running on Vietnam....I want to know what he did in the Senate that makes him a leader. So far I have found nothing of substance. Oh, he talks a good game and all the things he wants to do, but when pressed about HOW he is going to do it....silence.

Well...we KNOW Bush...we see him every day and what he does is an open book. Kerry is an unknown entity and since HE is running on Vietnam....I want to know what he did in the Senate that makes him a leader. So far I have found nothing of substance. Oh, he talks a good game and all the things he wants to do, but when pressed about HOW he is going to do it....silence.

Here's about 256 pages of a plan:

http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

Here's about 256 pages of a plan:

http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

Ok, now show me HOW he is going to do all of those things.....he talks a good game...but he cannot deliver.

HOW is he going to wean the US off mideast oil? Drill more here? That would make the environmentalists very angry....force people to buy smaller cars? How? Force industry to make hydrogen powered cars? I wish they would, but you cannot force industry to do anything.

So HOW is he going to do this?

Ok, now show me HOW he is going to do all of those things.....he talks a good game...but he cannot deliver.

HOW is he going to wean the US off mideast oil? Drill more here? That would make the environmentalists very angry....force people to buy smaller cars? How? Force industry to make hydrogen powered cars? I wish they would, but you cannot force industry to do anything.

So HOW is he going to do this?

Surely you did not read that in the time it took for your reply post? He is oppossed to more drilling here, he has said that. Read the plan.

Surely you did not read that in the time it took for your reply post? He is oppossed to more drilling here, he has said that. Read the plan.

No, i did not read the WHOLE thing...so just HOW is he going to get the US off mideast oil? he says he will...but not HOW?

No, i did not read the WHOLE thing...so just HOW is he going to get the US off mideast oil? he says he will...but not HOW?

It's on page 44 and goes on for several pages. I could paraphrase, but it is an in-depth plan. They take a few pages to decribe the problem in depth, what needs to be done, and how they intend to do it.

Well, as I have said many times, if in a 19 year career in the Senate, Kerry had never changed his mind on the issues, then I'd worry, the world is not static after all, why should Kerry be? Have you never changed your mind? Have time never changed? I'm 35 years old and I assure you I don't look at the world the same way I did 10 years ago, let alone 19 years ago.

AMEN!! Stephinstan, nicely said. This is the problem. They accuse Kerry of flip-flopping because he doesn't keep the exact same position and hold monolithically behind it? Well, I DO want a president like that sir. All Kerry has shown to me is that he's a good, deep thinker and sometimes, after thinking he changes his mind. And I'd rather have someone change their mind then lie outright to me a la GW.

AMEN!! Stephinstan, nicely said. This is the problem. They accuse Kerry of flip-flopping because he doesn't keep the exact same position and hold monolithically behind it? Well, I DO want a president like that sir. All Kerry has shown to me is that he's a good, deep thinker and sometimes, after thinking he changes his mind. And I'd rather have someone change their mind then lie outright to me a la GW.

I apoligize for the long post....but I lost the link to the original. Bush's flip-flopping is not only repugnant, but more recent. Below you will see a pattern of dis-honesty that can't be easily explained, like any of Kerry's alleged flip-flops:

President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief
July 7, 2004

From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.

1. Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]

...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]

...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]

3. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

4. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

5. Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

6. OPEC
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

7. Iraq Funding
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

9. Science
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

10. Ahmed Chalabi
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

11. Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

12. Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

13. Free Trade
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

14. Osama Bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

15. The Environment
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

16. WMD Commission
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

20. Gay Marriage
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

21. Nation Building
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

23. U.N. Resolution
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

25. Campaign Finance
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

Ok, now show me HOW he is going to do all of those things.....he talks a good game...but he cannot deliver.

HOW is he going to wean the US off mideast oil? Drill more here? That would make the environmentalists very angry....force people to buy smaller cars? How? Force industry to make hydrogen powered cars? I wish they would, but you cannot force industry to do anything.

So HOW is he going to do this?

So does bush! He does the same crap by promising programs like "no child left behind" and then putting no money behind it. Bush is just as bad so look at him before you criticize this candidate.

It's on page 44 and goes on for several pages. I could paraphrase, but it is an in-depth plan. They take a few pages to decribe the problem in depth, what needs to be done, and how they intend to do it.

Ok, I read that part....he says what they will do...but again, not HOW they will do it. It all sounds good on paper...but implementing it will cost billions...and where will that come from? The tax payers.

Wow, Jed. Damn.

Ok, I read that part....he says what they will do...but again, not HOW they will do it. It all sounds good on paper...but implementing it will cost billions...and where will that come from? The tax payers.

when are the republicans going to learn that you can't do something with nothing. Yes, he's going to raise taxes. There has never been a president who didn't raise taxes. It's going to happen. To get stuff done, you need money to back it up - and I, as a tax payer, am fine with giving more money if programs are out there where the homeless are taken care of, where those that are hungry are being fed. Where industry is being moved towards more environmentally friendly means. I'll rest easier if I have to give more money to the gov't but can know these things are happening. You think Bush hasn't done the same? He's screwed over college students like me and taken funding from education to pay for his stupid warS.

Ok, I read that part....he says what they will do...but again, not HOW they will do it. It all sounds good on paper...but implementing it will cost billions...and where will that come from? The tax payers.

O.K. well to find that out you need to read the chapter that talks about the economy. Chapter 2, which I believe starts on page 59, "opportunity" is the title for the chapter. You are correct that funding is needed for his energy policies. He has talked in every speech about rolling back the tax cuts to the top two percent of the income brackets that Bush has gifted to the wealthy back to the pre-2001 rates. In this chapter, he talks about tax cuts to the middle class, closing loop-holes for corporations that evade taxes, a jobs tax-credit for businesses, and eliminating the capital gains tax for small or start-up businesses. It is a proven fact that if you want to grow the economy, you infuse the money in areas where it will likely be spent back into the economy, i.e. the middle to lower class and small to medium businesses. Tax cuts to the wealthy have not proven to grow the economy. Read his chapter on the economy and you will be enlightened.

So does bush! He does the same crap by promising programs like "no child left behind" and then putting no money behind it. Bush is just as bad so look at him before you criticize this candidate.

That program was fully funded on the federal level...it is the states that are using the money in other areas. I have called for the disbanding of the federal dept of education for many years....why we need multi level agancies is beyond me.

O.K. well to find that out you need to read the chapter that talks about the economy. Chapter 2, which I believe starts on page 59, "opportunity" is the title for the chapter. You are correct that funding is needed for his energy policies. He has talked in every speech about rolling back the tax cuts to the top two percent of the income brackets that Bush has gifted to the wealthy back to the pre-2001 rates. In this chapter, he talks about tax cuts to the middle class, closing loop-holes for corporations that evade taxes, a jobs tax-credit for businesses, and eliminating the capital gains tax for small or start-up businesses. It is a proven fact that if you want to grow the economy, you infuse the money in areas where it will likely be spent back into the economy, i.e. the middle to lower class and small to medium businesses. Tax cuts to the wealthy have not proven to grow the economy. Read his chapter on the economy and you will be enlightened.

A gift to the top 2%? EVERYONE in the US got the SAME 5 of tax cut....that 5% of $500,000 is a bigger number that 5% of $50,000 does NOT mean the wealthy got a bigger tax cut....5% is 5%.

That program was fully funded on the federal level...it is the states that are using the money in other areas. I have called for the disbanding of the federal dept of education for many years....why we need multi level agancies is beyond me.

The money given to No Child Left Behind (in my opinion the most ironically named federal program of all time) was spent in the program to the tune of 99.5%. The only gap you see is due to the facts schools have up to 27 months to spend the money due to some long-term programs which may take longer than the legally required one year spending rule. So to say the states are using the money in other ways is simply false.

when are the republicans going to learn that you can't do something with nothing. Yes, he's going to raise taxes. There has never been a president who didn't raise taxes. It's going to happen. To get stuff done, you need money to back it up - and I, as a tax payer, am fine with giving more money if programs are out there where the homeless are taken care of, where those that are hungry are being fed. Where industry is being moved towards more environmentally friendly means. I'll rest easier if I have to give more money to the gov't but can know these things are happening. You think Bush hasn't done the same? He's screwed over college students like me and taken funding from education to pay for his stupid warS.


THAT will kill him....remember Walter Mondale...the same thing. "I am going to raise your taxes." The problem is not the AMOUNT of taxes collected...it is the waste inherent in gov't programs.

A gift to the top 2%? EVERYONE in the US got the SAME 5 of tax cut....that 5% of $500,000 is a bigger number that 5% of $50,000 does NOT mean the wealthy got a bigger tax cut....5% is 5%.

But that just goes to show that the largest portion of the tax cut went to the wealthy!!!!!!! To say that 5% of $40,000 is somehow equal to 5% of $1,000,000 just insults people's intelligence.

But that just goes to show that the largest portion of the tax cut went to the wealthy!!!!!!! To say that 5% of $40,000 is somehow equal to 5% of $1,000,000 just insults people's intelligence.

THATS the problem....an across the board tax cut of 5% is not seen as fair? Only in the US, where we have a system that allows people to become successful do we then want to punish those who take advantage of it and are.

THATS the problem....an across the board tax cut of 5% is not seen as fair? Only in the US, where we have a system that allows people to become successful do we then want to punish those who take advantage of it and are.

Believe me we're not punishing them.

According to Bush himself, the rich find a way to not pay their fair share anyway.

Besides, how is it punishing them to roll back the taxes to the rates they were in the 90's for the top 2%? Seems to me the rich did pretty good in the 90's when the economy was chugging along!

Believe me we're not punishing them.

According to Bush himself, the rich find a way to not pay their fair share anyway.

Besides, how is it punishing them to roll back the taxes to the rates they were in the 90's for the top 2%? Seems to me the rich did pretty good in the 90's when the economy was chugging along!

Because even with THAT rollback there will still be a HUGE shortfall and thus...the rest of us will have to pay for it.

Instead of trying to find ways to squeeze the most money out of people we should be finding ways to cut the government.

Instead of trying to find ways to squeeze the most money out of people we should be finding ways to cut the government.

Ahh but what do they belive when it comes to Anti-Trust, worker-safety, etc.?

Instead of trying to find ways to squeeze the most money out of people we should be finding ways to cut the government.

Agreed!!! As a registered Libertarian I would LOVE to see the gov't cut in 1/4 and out of my pocket completely!! But our Liberal friends seem to think we should spend money on "social" programs and our Conservative friends think it should be spent on business interests. i say give me my money back and leave the rest of the world to sort itself out....

However....I doubt we will ever be able to elect a Libertarian president without a firm base of support. We need to get mayors, representatives and congressmen elected first.

Because even with THAT rollback there will still be a HUGE shortfall and thus...the rest of us will have to pay for it.

Give me the facts that support your assertion. My guess: you have none. Bush talked recently about getting tougher on tax cheats. Now he jokes about how the rich get away with it. Just another Bush flip-flop.

Agreed!!! As a registered Libertarian I would LOVE to see the gov't cut in 1/4 and out of my pocket completely!! But our Liberal friends seem to think we should spend money on "social" programs and our Conservative friends think it should be spent on business interests. i say give me my money back and leave the rest of the world to sort itself out....

However....I doubt we will ever be able to elect a Libertarian president without a firm base of support. We need to get mayors, representatives and congressmen elected first.

If they're out of your pocket completely, who's paying for the other 3/4?

A gift to the top 2%? EVERYONE in the US got the SAME 5 of tax cut....that 5% of $500,000 is a bigger number that 5% of $50,000 does NOT mean the wealthy got a bigger tax cut....5% is 5%.
The tax cuts by Bush are weighted in favour of the wealthiest Americans as you can see by the chart:

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

It is definitely not proportional as you have suggested.

That chart is faulty because it has a lack of information. Even if they don't want to go by tax brackets, which would be the correct way to do it, they don't provide the average income for each group that they do have, meaning that its impossible to decide whether Biff's statement that everyone got a 5% cut is true. Of course before on the old forum I made a very long post about how that graph and all the things you say it supports isn't true, but hey keep on posting it over and over.

His vision for the future is scary....he will raise taxes through the roof to pay for it and the economy will stall. National healthcare is NOT the most pressing issue we are facing and thats what he has said he will commit to first....how will he pay for such a thing? Further....why should we allow the government to provide our healthcare. Ever been to a VA hospital? Trust me...as a disabled veteran...you don't WANT the government providing your healthcare.
Kerry will roll back the tax cuts for the rich. Is that really scarier than a gigantic deficit?

Your current government helthcare sucks? Your last sentence just proves how Kerry's plan is a good one.

I also notice that you constantly mention your status as a military veteran, while criticising Kerry for doing the same. Is the pot black?

All I am gonna say is this, Congrats if you think Kerry is going to win, but I'm going Bush, I would rather go on a course charted by Bush, however crazy than give into Kerrys oh lets feel good attitude. Just my opinion if you don't like it, the little man says it all :headbang:
What, don't you like to feel good?

If they're out of your pocket completely, who's paying for the other 3/4?

Noone....we should NOT be paying ANY income tax. We are the largest importer in the world. Tariffs on ALL items imported into the US would fund all of our needs, and they do not have to be high either. The US can also pull our troops out of other countries. We actually PAY other countries to allow our troops to be there. Then withdraw from the UN and quit sending money to Africa to fight AIDS....a totally preventable disease.

Here is another idea. Get rid of the taxes to industries that produce goods in other countries. For example....

Ford makes cars in Germany and sells those cars there. Ford pays taxes to both Germany AND the US on monies earned in Germany.

BMW makes cars in the US and sells those cars here. BMW pays NO taxes to Germany for monies earned here. They only pay taxes on monies earned in Germany.

The US government puts US companies at a disadvantage and it is no wonder they are leaving for the Bahamas etc.

Our foreign policy has been one of engagement since 1945 and I think it is time to disengage and let the world take care of itself.

That chart is faulty because it has a lack of information. Even if they don't want to go by tax brackets, which would be the correct way to do it, they don't provide the average income for each group that they do have, meaning that its impossible to decide whether Biff's statement that everyone got a 5% cut is true. Of course before on the old forum I made a very long post about how that graph and all the things you say it supports isn't true, but hey keep on posting it over and over.

I used 5% as an example....I do not know what the actual percentage is.

Kerry will roll back the tax cuts for the rich. Is that really scarier than a gigantic deficit?

Your current government helthcare sucks? Your last sentence just proves how Kerry's plan is a good one.

I also notice that you constantly mention your status as a military veteran, while criticising Kerry for doing the same. Is the pot black?


What, don't you like to feel good?

No....Kerry SAYS he will tax the rich. "Rich" being defined as $200,000 or more in income per year. Small businesses also fall into that category. Who produces the MOST jobs in the US? Large companies? No, it is the small companies that do so...and it is small business owners like me and my partner that are going to take the hit, because we are "rich." :rolleyes:

Kerry is like all other Democrat politicians....he will say he is going to stick it to the rich for the little guy. LBJ had his "War on Poverty." How did THAT work out? NOT TOO GOOD!!! All he did was increase the taxes and waste a ton of money on "social" programs that returned NOTHING. So an investment with ZERO return is a good investment?

Did you also know that every dollar spent on defense gives 3 in return to the economy, but every dollar spent on "social" programs returns nothing? Those are just monies that are taken out of the economy. Thats just ONE example...there are others.

I do not fault Kerry for being a veteran, I fault him for making his status as a veteran the backbone of his campaign, but he refuses to release the records for his "three purple hearts" since questions have been raised. Why won't he? because he does not have to? No he doesn't, but it was he who brought the medals up in the first place and made them an issue.

Being that the war is the most pressing issue in the 2004 election, it scares me that Kerry doesn't seem concerned about it

Give me the facts that support your assertion. My guess: you have none. Bush talked recently about getting tougher on tax cheats. Now he jokes about how the rich get away with it. Just another Bush flip-flop.

Because a national healthcare program will cost many BILLIONS and do you honestly think you can take TAHT much from the top 2% of the population? That much money is just not there at the old tax rate. Kerry will HAVE to go above that level and then everyone will be paying for that boondoggle.

Kerry is an indecisive candidate who has demonstrated an inconsistent position on the War on Terror, who voted against funding for our troops at war and who cannot give a clear answer on his position concerning the decision to remove Saddam Hussein!!!

Kerry is an indecisive candidate who has demonstrated an inconsistent position on the War on Terror, who voted against funding for our troops at war and who cannot give a clear answer on his position concerning the decision to remove Saddam Hussein!

Kerry is an indecisive candidate who has demonstrated an inconsistent position on the War on Terror, who voted against funding for our troops at war and who cannot give a clear answer on his position concerning the decision to remove Saddam Hussein!

You've obviously neither read Kerry nor listened to what he has said but only drawn conclusions based upon the "talking points" of your neo-con buddies on the right. The only thing that gives me hope is that the vast majority of America has an open mind and not just pre-conceived ideas like yours.

You've obviously neither read Kerry nor listened to what he has said but only drawn conclusions based upon the "talking points" of your neo-con buddies on the right. The only thing that gives me hope is that the vast majority of America has an open mind and not just pre-conceived ideas like yours.


pre-conceived??? he has continually gone back and forth since 97 on this position on the most crucial issue in the 2004 election, the War on Terror, how is this drawing conclusions??

pre-conceived??? he has continually gone back and forth since 97 on this position on the most crucial issue in the 2004 election, the War on Terror, how is this drawing conclusions??

If you have ever been in the senate or understood how it works, it is perfectly logical to vote against a bill that you support due to details either attched to a bill or issues with parts of it.

That doesn't explain away your buddy Dubya's flip-flopping, which is far worse. I have posted it earlier, but for your education, here it is again:

President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief
July 7, 2004

From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.

1. Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]

...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]

...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]

3. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

4. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

5. Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

6. OPEC
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

7. Iraq Funding
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

9. Science
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

10. Ahmed Chalabi
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

11. Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

12. Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

13. Free Trade
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

14. Osama Bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

15. The Environment
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

16. WMD Commission
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

20. Gay Marriage
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

21. Nation Building
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

23. U.N. Resolution
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

25. Campaign Finance
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

Agreed!!! As a registered Libertarian.....
Are you sure you aren't a Republican? You are one of this forum's biggest anti-John Kerry critics, and also one of the biggest Bush defenders.

Are you sure you aren't a Republican? You are one of this forum's biggest anti-John Kerry critics, and also one of the biggest Bush defenders.

Nope...registered Libertarian...says so right on my voter registration card. This election is just too close for my comfort. I have voted straight Libertarian for years, but I shudder at the thought of a Kerry victory. He scares the hell out of me. His wife is a nutjob as well, good thing she is not running for anything.

Nope...registered Libertarian...says so right on my voter registration card. This election is just too close for my comfort. I have voted straight Libertarian for years, but I shudder at the thought of a Kerry victory. He scares the hell out of me. His wife is a nutjob as well, good thing she is not running for anything.

Amen, brother! I too am registered Libertarian, having voted straight party line in 1992, 1996, and 2000. But I also see this race as very close and don't want Kerry to win. Evita Peron-Kerry is a complete loon.

Amen, brother! I too am registered Libertarian, having voted straight party line in 1992, 1996, and 2000. But I also see this race as very close and don't want Kerry to win. Evita Peron-Kerry is a complete loon.

I have never owned a firearm in my life, but IF Kerry wins I will SERIOUSLY consider buying one. The man and his ideals are absolutely frightening to me.

I have never owned a firearm in my life, but IF Kerry wins I will SERIOUSLY consider buying one. The man and his ideals are absolutely frightening to me.
Well, then that's one thing on which Kerry and Bush have managed to form some unanimity, because if Bush wins, I'll be in the market for a gun for the first time in years. (I thought about buying one when I lived in a very rural area about 12 years ago--had to worry about wild dogs--but never bought it. I got divorced and moved instead. :D)

Nevada's a really interesting situation, its actually gained jobs (even in manufacturing) during the Bush Presidency and has been more prosperous than the rest of the country. In the old Dem. stronghold, Las Vegas, Republicans have gained ground but statewide its still pretty even (Bush has a slight lead).
Even so, the Nevadians are gonna look at the only issue that most of them feel connected to, which is Yucca Mountain. It's strange how nuclear related stuff can stir up such animosity.
Anyhow, this is a gurantee win for Kerry. It's why, I think, the Democrats are so strong. They don't focus on how their policies will alieviate thhe issues. Rather, they focus on symbols, and people like that. Nevada is now a gurantee win, I'm sorry to say.

Even so, the Nevadians are gonna look at the only issue that most of them feel connected to, which is Yucca Mountain. It's strange how nuclear related stuff can stir up such animosity.
Anyhow, this is a gurantee win for Kerry. It's why, I think, the Democrats are so strong. They don't focus on how their policies will alieviate thhe issues. Rather, they focus on symbols, and people like that. Nevada is now a gurantee win, I'm sorry to say.
Its far from a guaranteed win for the Dems, just look at the recent opinion polls there. The Economist, in fact, ran an article on Nevada as a swing state last week and gave Bush a slight edge. Sure, Yucca is an issue that is unique to Nevada and it gives the Dems a boost there. It by no means hands it over on a silver platter.

You're right, Kwangistar--Nevada is still very much in the air, as is the election as a whole. I was reading today that we're still 84 days away from the general, and that's a long time in political circles. I'd still rather be Kerry than Bush right now--I think it's Kerry's to lose, especially when you consider how much time Bush still seems to be using trying to shore up his base instead of going after undecideds or swing voters--but it's far from over.

Its far from a guaranteed win for the Dems, just look at the recent opinion polls there. The Economist, in fact, ran an article on Nevada as a swing state last week and gave Bush a slight edge. Sure, Yucca is an issue that is unique to Nevada and it gives the Dems a boost there. It by no means hands it over on a silver platter.
I'm betting on the fact that Nevadians have bad memories with nuclear stuff. Back in the fifties, they tested A-bombs outside of Las Vegas. Now, the elderly there have a higher rate of cancer than the rest of the nation. And as senior citizens are the largest voting bloc, I bet most will vote for Kerry. After all, Bush may have an edge in the state as a whole, but perhaps not among likly voters.

I'm betting on the fact that Nevadians have bad memories with nuclear stuff. Back in the fifties, they tested A-bombs outside of Las Vegas. Now, the elderly there have a higher rate of cancer than the rest of the nation. And as senior citizens are the largest voting bloc, I bet most will vote for Kerry. After all, Bush may have an edge in the state as a whole, but perhaps not among likly voters.
If polls were done w/o regard to whether the people were likely voters or not, then there would be the influx of the Las Vegasites - usually democratic leaning - who who wouldn't vote, either. Older people voted for Gore over Bush in '00, Bush won Nevada by like 5% I think.

The problem with the "likely voter" category in polls is that there's no real definition for what makes a likely voter. Each polling group has their own formula and none of them tend to be too open about how they determine what a likely voter looks like, demographically speaking. (I spend way too much time talking to statisticians online :D)

Well, then that's one thing on which Kerry and Bush have managed to form some unanimity, because if Bush wins, I'll be in the market for a gun for the first time in years. (I thought about buying one when I lived in a very rural area about 12 years ago--had to worry about wild dogs--but never bought it. I got divorced and moved instead. :D)
Beat you. That's how I celebrated the Bush/Rove... er Cheney 2000 victory. :)

If polls were done w/o regard to whether the people were likely voters or not, then there would be the influx of the Las Vegasites - usually democratic leaning - who who wouldn't vote, either. Older people voted for Gore over Bush in '00, Bush won Nevada by like 5% I think.
That's another thing I'm worried about. Too many states have razor-thin margins between the two candidates, and it causes anxiety. Take Florida, for instance. Bush's lead in that state is currently about 0.5%. That means that this critical swing state can swing a.) in either direction, and b.) have a similar mess like the contraversial one in 2000.

That's another thing I'm worried about. Too many states have razor-thin margins between the two candidates, and it causes anxiety. Take Florida, for instance. Bush's lead in that state is currently about 0.5%. That means that this critical swing state can swing a.) in either direction, and b.) have a similar mess like the contraversial one in 2000.
Yeah al lot of the states do have really thin margins. Its still up in the air for either candidate. :)

Yeah al lot of the states do have really thin margins. Its still up in the air for either candidate. :)
I know, but I'm assuming the worst. I have to wake up to the fact that my life won't end if Kerry gets elected. But hey, I feel pretty confident that Kerry can't make it past one term should he be elected.

That's another thing I'm worried about. Too many states have razor-thin margins between the two candidates, and it causes anxiety. Take Florida, for instance. Bush's lead in that state is currently about 0.5%. That means that this critical swing state can swing a.) in either direction, and b.) have a similar mess like the contraversial one in 2000.
Actually, according to the American Research Group (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/fl/) a polling outfit that works nationwide, a poll released August 6 has Kerry up by 7 points in Florida.

August 6, 2004
Kerry Takes Lead Over Bush Among Likely Voters in Florida

John Kerry has taken the lead over George W. Bush among likely voters in Florida according to a survey by the American Research Group. A total of 50% of likely voters say they would vote for Kerry if the presidential election were being held today and 43% say they would vote for Bush. A total of 2% of likely voters say they would vote for Ralph Nader and 5% of likely voters are undecided.

In a ballot question without Nader, 52% of likely voters say they would vote for Kerry and 44% say they would vote for Bush, with 4% of likely voters undecided.

Despite what most of the punditry has said over the last couple of weeks, Kerry did get a bounce out of the convention, and it seems to have been mostly in battleground states like Florida.

Oh yeah--that ARG link also includes the internal numbers and the methodology, in case anyone's interested.

Actually, according to the American Research Group (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/fl/) a polling outfit that works nationwide, a poll released August 6 has Kerry up by 7 points in Florida.



Despite what most of the punditry has said over the last couple of weeks, Kerry did get a bounce out of the convention, and it seems to have been mostly in battleground states like Florida.
I'm not gonna get into polling, or whether Kerry had a convention bounce, or anything like that. Even that is a close margin, and it's likely to change a few times before election day.

That chart is faulty because it has a lack of information. Even if they don't want to go by tax brackets, which would be the correct way to do it, they don't provide the average income for each group that they do have, meaning that its impossible to decide whether Biff's statement that everyone got a 5% cut is true. Of course before on the old forum I made a very long post about how that graph and all the things you say it supports isn't true, but hey keep on posting it over and over.
There is absolutely nothing faulty with the chart and you know it. The tax cuts were not 5%, and ARE weighted to the wealthiest 2% of the population.

I do remember the posts in the old forum and I do recall suggesting that you acquire a new calculator because it was obvious that the one that you were using was broken LOL. If I could access the old posts, I would be more than willing to repost them.

You have not disproved anything in regards to the tax cuts, because you can't prove what doesn't exist?

I don't have access to my other computer at the moment so I just thought I would throw this your way:

http://www.cbpp.org/6-2-04tax.pdf

It talks about the ultimate burden of the tax cuts to the majority of Americans (80%). Note especially Page 15 of the Report, where it clearly details that the wealthiest tax payers get over a 7% tax reduction, with an average savings of over $204,000, while those in the lower brackets receive a substantially lower tax cut, averaging just over $1,500 and lower percentage tax change.

In absolute numbers, no one has ever disputed that the rich get the same amount as the poor. 10% of one million is different than 10% of ten thousand. In fact, 1% of one million is bigger than 10% of ten thousand.

For the people who earn the least, however, there was a new bracket created (10%) which dropped them down from the old 15% one, a 5% absolute drop and 33% relative decrease.

In absolute numbers, no one has ever disputed that the rich get the same amount as the poor. 10% of one million is different than 10% of ten thousand. In fact, 1% of one million is bigger than 10% of ten thousand.

For the people who earn the least, however, there was a new bracket created (10%) which dropped them down from the old 15% one, a 5% absolute drop and 33% relative decrease.
That's the part everyone fails to recognize. The wealthiest pay the most in taxes, so even if we cut their tax brackets by 1%, they'll still get a windfall. A 5% jump for the lowest bracket is, if you ask me, extremely generous. Then again, since most of the tax revenue doesn't come from that group, it'd be safe if they payed around 1%. But again, no matter how big the cuts in terms of percentage that the high brackets get, it'll still be far bigger than even the upper middle class.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040811-024229-3938r
More signs that I think Kerry will win. This will apeal to seniors, which are already the largest voting bloc in the nation.

Well, then that's one thing on which Kerry and Bush have managed to form some unanimity, because if Bush wins, I'll be in the market for a gun for the first time in years. (I thought about buying one when I lived in a very rural area about 12 years ago--had to worry about wild dogs--but never bought it. I got divorced and moved instead. :D)

So by your logic, you should have bought one 4 years ago.....why didn't you?

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040811-024229-3938r
More signs that I think Kerry will win. This will apeal to seniors, which are already the largest voting bloc in the nation.


Yeah and they are good policies so I think its a smart move and its good for the seniors.

Yeah and they are good policies so I think its a smart move and its good for the seniors.
I think tort reforms would help more, but how can you put that idea into a five minute speach, and show how it'll provide results?

So by your logic, you should have bought one 4 years ago.....why didn't you?
Because while I disliked Bush and didn't want him to win, and while I knew he wasn't the moderate he was claiming to be, I didn't think he was as bad as he turned out to be. I seriously underestimated his incompetence and the willingness of the people around him to shred the Constitution. I've had four long hard years to learn that lesson, and it has certainly taken.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040811-024229-3938r
More signs that I think Kerry will win. This will apeal to seniors, which are already the largest voting bloc in the nation.

It is a shame that the votes of our seasoned citizens are for sale.

It is a shame that the votes of our seasoned citizens are for sale.
Yeah--like the Republican party wasn't trying to buy their votes when they passed that abomination of a prescription drug plan in the first place. This is American poliics--appeal to blocs of voters and promise them stuff. It's been this way for two hundred years and it ain't gonna change any time soon. At least what Kerry wants to do will help seniors more than drug and insurance companies, instead of the other way around like the current prescription plan does.

It is a shame that the votes of our seasoned citizens are for sale.

Well, perhaps if Bush hadn't gutted their health care and done nothing to help provide cheaper life-saving perscription medications, they wouldn't need the money.

Because while I disliked Bush and didn't want him to win, and while I knew he wasn't the moderate he was claiming to be, I didn't think he was as bad as he turned out to be. I seriously underestimated his incompetence and the willingness of the people around him to shred the Constitution. I've had four long hard years to learn that lesson, and it has certainly taken.

Shred the constitution? Now how can ONE man with only 1/3 of the power do that? Please educate me on this one because I must have been asleep somewhere.

Shred the constitution? Now how can ONE man with only 1/3 of the power do that? Please educate me on this one because I must have been asleep somewhere.
Guess you were--and you're being more than a little disingenuous when you suggest he's acting alone. He does, after all, have a willing Congress and a alargely willing Judiciary system.

His Justice department has held people without charge, bail, and contact with either family or legal representation. He has instructed his Justice department to find ways around international treaties forbidding torture. His congress has passed laws that reduce our privacy, and he has signed them gladly and continues to ask that they not be allowed to sunset.

It is a shame that the votes of our seasoned citizens are for sale.
Well, they are, because they are the largest voting bloc, and with the baby boomers retiring, they'll get a helluvalot larger.
In fact, to be honest, they'll make universal healthcare likely sometime in the future. I think it'd be a disastorous course for this nation, but on the surface (and that's how far most likely voters will go), universal healthcare looks good.

Guess you were--and you're being more than a little disingenuous when you suggest he's acting alone. He does, after all, have a willing Congress and a alargely willing Judiciary system.

His Justice department has held people without charge, bail, and contact with either family or legal representation. He has instructed his Justice department to find ways around international treaties forbidding torture. His congress has passed laws that reduce our privacy, and he has signed them gladly and continues to ask that they not be allowed to sunset.

Well...if I recall, the votes were not even close, but I could be wrong about that one.

hmmmm....held people without charge? Well, lets just say the investigation is continuing. Torture? Who have we actually tortured? No, we take them to Egypt and let them torture them.

Reduced our privacy? In what way has my privacy been reduced?

Well, they are, because they are the largest voting bloc, and with the baby boomers retiring, they'll get a helluvalot larger.
In fact, to be honest, they'll make universal healthcare likely sometime in the future. I think it'd be a disastorous course for this nation, but on the surface (and that's how far most likely voters will go), universal healthcare looks good.


My god...we agree. So why is Kerry calling for that to be the first thing he will do if he is elected? What a disaster that will be huh?

Well, perhaps if Bush hadn't gutted their health care and done nothing to help provide cheaper life-saving perscription medications, they wouldn't need the money.

Wait a minute. Didn't Congress add a prescription drug plan to Medicare, where no such plan existed before? How is that gutting their healthcare? And didn't the Democrats vote for that plan also?

My god...we agree. So why is Kerry calling for that to be the first thing he will do if he is elected? What a disaster that will be huh?
That's not even the worst part. With the added bureaocracy, there's no question in my mind that the quality of healthcare will decline, just like those of veterans have since the VA was created. We can't change back to our current system, however, because healthcare will be an utter mess. The only way to fix it then would be far higher premiums on HMOs. Everything about universal healthcare, including reprivatizing it, is a disaster.

Wait a minute. Didn't Congress add a prescription drug plan to Medicare, where no such plan existed before? How is that gutting their healthcare? And didn't the Democrats vote for that plan also?They added a plan that was more a giveaway to drug companies and insurance companies than a help to seniors, and the seniors have figured it out--they oppose the plan by almost 2 to 1 now. A few democrats in the Senate voted for it, but not many, and in the House, the leadership kept the voting open for more than 2 hours while they strongarmed members of their own party to get them to vote for it. There was an allegation by one Republican member that he had, in essence, been bribed for his yes vote. He retracted the allegation the next day. There was also the little matter of lying to members of Congress as to how much the plan would cost--the administration knew it would run to over $540 billion, but kept the government accountants from telling anyone. The official line was that it would run $400 billion. It pissed off Republican members after the fact, but it was a little too late.

They added a plan that was more a giveaway to drug companies and insurance companies than a help to seniors, and the seniors have figured it out--they oppose the plan by almost 2 to 1 now. A few democrats in the Senate voted for it, but not many, and in the House, the leadership kept the voting open for more than 2 hours while they strongarmed members of their own party to get them to vote for it. There was an allegation by one Republican member that he had, in essence, been bribed for his yes vote. He retracted the allegation the next day. There was also the little matter of lying to members of Congress as to how much the plan would cost--the administration knew it would run to over $540 billion, but kept the government accountants from telling anyone. The official line was that it would run $400 billion. It pissed off Republican members after the fact, but it was a little too late.

I still don't see how this is "gutting their healthcare." It's better than what Medicare offered before, which was NOTHING. And could you provide details on how this is a "giveaway to drug companies and insurance companies?"

Who the heck wants a Lieing, Flip flopping, hippie in office?
Lost of people, it seems.

I still don't see how this is "gutting their healthcare." It's better than what Medicare offered before, which was NOTHING. And could you provide details on how this is a "giveaway to drug companies and insurance companies?"The most blatant way that it's a giveaway to drug companies is that 1) it forbids Medicare from using its future leverage as the largest purchaser of drugs to negotiate lower prices from drug companies. Essentially, this means the drug companies get to set their own prices and Medicare has to pay it. 2) It forbids reimportation of drugs from Canada--period. No private reimportation, and no public reimportation. Both provisions have the same effect--drug companies in the US now have a captive market that they can gouge to their hearts' content.

In addition, there's a huge gap in the actual prescription coverage. I don't have the precise figures, but if you spend more than, I believe, $1200 or so a year on prescriptions, there's a massive hole where you're out of pocket for everything until you hit something like $5,000. It's called doughnut coverage, and it doesn't help the people who are on the most expensive medicines.

As for the insurance companies, it's a bit more esoteric and it's been almost 15 years since I last sold insurance so I don't fully understand the long term implications, but here's the basics as I understand them. Private insurance companies are now given a larger role in Medicare to provide insurance. Unlike in the past, where doctors dealt with Medicare directly and supplemental insurance plans covered the gap between what Medicare thought a doctor should charge and what they actually charged (Medicare covered 80% of what they thought the doctors should charge, not actual charges), under the new plan, these private companies will be able to sign people up and then bill Medicare for the procedures. Medicare won't be allowed to tell the companies what they think the procedures should cost and reimburse on that basis, however--they'll be forced to go with what the insurance companies will charge and then pay it.

That's why there was such a discrepancy between what the Congress was told the program would cost and what it's actually going to cost--the Congress gave these two industries a license to print money in effect.

Here's another thing Karl Rove must not be too happy about.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5685179/
It was a rather stupid comment, if you ask me. Then again, Dick Cheney, despite his intelligence, is known for his mouth.

Originally Posted by Nano soft
Who the heck wants a Lieing, Flip flopping, hippie in office?
People who vote for Bush :)

Why does Biff think that taking away tax cuts for the rich won't be much money? I'd think with all the rich that would equal tons...

People who vote for Bush :)

Why does Biff think that taking away tax cuts for the rich won't be much money? I'd think with all the rich that would equal tons...
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
It's only about half of what Kerry will need to implement new programs. Either he must raise taxes on lower income groups, or we'll see bigger deficits.

It is a shame that the votes of our seasoned citizens are for sale.
Well I would imagine that if the senior citizens ever found out the following, they would give the Republicans a serious kick in the pants at the polls:

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

In just the past 12 months, you have increased the national debt by $544 billion. More importantly, you have stolen $371 billion from the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, the reason I say stolen is if you take it back and you do not have a plan to repay it, it is stealing. If someone pays on their payroll taxes toward Social Security, they fully expect it to be put in a trust fund just for Social Security and that it is going to be sitting there for when they need it.

That is not the plan, Mr. Speaker. I would encourage you or any of my colleagues to tell me the name of the bank account that the Social Security trust fund is put in. Because you know and I know there is not a dime in it. It is nothing but IOUs, government securities.

You have borrowed $167 billion from Medicare, the same thing. Hard-working Americans pay payroll taxes. On that payroll tax is a line item that goes to Medicare with the promise that it would be set aside just for their retirement. There is not a penny there.

Military retirement, the Federal employees' retirement, we owe the Federal employees' retirement system, Mr. Speaker, over $500 billion. There are laws that would have prevented you back when you were in your medical practice from dipping into your employees' retirement fund for any reason, good or bad. If you had done so, you would have gone to jail. There is not a penny in the Federal employees' retirement fund. Yet you continue to borrow against it to disguise the true nature of the American debt.

You borrowed $314 billion from foreign investors, and my buddy from Cuba will love this one, because you have borrowed $52.5 billion from Communist China. You have borrowed $122 billion from Japan. We now owe $1.3 trillion to foreign nations and investors, including $122 billion to Communist China. Tell me you are proud of that. Tell me the Republican majority is proud that we owe $122 billion to China and that $50 billion a year of American tax dollars go to pay interest on what we owe just to foreigners like the Communist Chinese. Our children will have to pay back China, Japan, our foreign creditors before they can even get back to paying what we should have paid all along to Social Security, Medicare and the retirement funds. They have to repay our debts before they ever repay theirs.

This is the Republican place in history. You are responsible for more deficit spending this year than in any year in American history. Tell me you are proud of that. You are responsible for the largest increase in the national debt in American history. Tell me you are proud of that.

Not only would the seniors not be amused, I am sure many members of the military would be interested too.

The Republicans have added over $1.5 Trillion in debt to the US National Debt and in a rough calculation, this works out to $5,172 NEW debt for every man, woman, and child in the US.

Perhaps this might add up for more votes for Kerry.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
It's only about half of what Kerry will need to implement new programs. Either he must raise taxes on lower income groups, or we'll see bigger deficits.
There are two things you never take into account when you make this argument Purly--not that I blame you alone. The punditry conveniently forgets as well. One I've already talked about in other threads--closing the tax loopholes that allow corporations to move headquarters offshore and avoid paying income taxes. That'll raise a hefty chunk. The other is that by targeting the tax cuts toward those who will actually spend the money, i.e. the middle and lower income levels, you boost the ecoomy. When the economy is humming, more people are working, more people are paying taxes, businesses are selling more goods and they're paying more taxes as well. Revenues increase in healthy economies. How do we know this? It's happened before--in the 90s.

Who the heck wants a Lieing, Flip flopping, hippie in office?

61% of the United States, that's who.

People who vote for Bush :)

Why does Biff think that taking away tax cuts for the rich won't be much money? I'd think with all the rich that would equal tons...

ALL those rich people? I think you might want to look at the amount of money that will be needed vs the number of people that money will be coming from. It simply will not be enough money by far. Plus, there are many tax loopholes the wealthy can use to avoid these taxes. Why is that? Because the morons who pass these taxes fall into the same group they are targeting!

Face it, the "tax the rich" mantra is only for public consumption. "Vote for Kerry, he is going to stick it to those rich guys!" Yeah....he is the richest man to ever run for president, sure he is going to "stick" it to himself. Wake up....

There are two things you never take into account when you make this argument Purly--not that I blame you alone. The punditry conveniently forgets as well. One I've already talked about in other threads--closing the tax loopholes that allow corporations to move headquarters offshore and avoid paying income taxes. That'll raise a hefty chunk. The other is that by targeting the tax cuts toward those who will actually spend the money, i.e. the middle and lower income levels, you boost the ecoomy. When the economy is humming, more people are working, more people are paying taxes, businesses are selling more goods and they're paying more taxes as well. Revenues increase in healthy economies. How do we know this? It's happened before--in the 90s.

So we will prevent companies from moving? What are we, the Soviet Union now?

Do you know WHY these companies move out of the US?

BMW makes cars in the US and sells them here....they pay taxes on the money thay make here to the US...not to Germany.

Ford makes and sells cars in Germany....they pay taxes on the money they make in Germany to Germany....but ALSO to the US. So they are at a disadvantage because the US requires them to pay taxes on foreign income. So companies move out of the US to avoid the double taxation. Do away with that and they will be more competitive AND they will not move away. Unfortunately, congress has never seen a dollar they did not like to tax.

So we will prevent companies from moving? What are we, the Soviet Union now?

Do you know WHY these companies move out of the US?

BMW makes cars in the US and sells them here....they pay taxes on the money thay make here to the US...not to Germany.

Ford makes and sells cars in Germany....they pay taxes on the money they make in Germany to Germany....but ALSO to the US. So they are at a disadvantage because the US requires them to pay taxes on foreign income. So companies move out of the US to avoid the double taxation. Do away with that and they will be more competitive AND they will not move away. Unfortunately, congress has never seen a dollar they did not like to tax.No, Biff--what I'm talking about are companies that earn money in the US, open up shell corporations in the Bahamas that consist of a post office box and little else, divert all profits to that corporation and therefore avoid paying income taxes in the US. It's legal to do so--I'm not suggesting otherwise--but it's a loophole that ought to be closed. Money made here ought to be taxed here--that's fair in my view--and in some cases right now, it's not happening.

No, Biff--what I'm talking about are companies that earn money in the US, open up shell corporations in the Bahamas that consist of a post office box and little else, divert all profits to that corporation and therefore avoid paying income taxes in the US. It's legal to do so--I'm not suggesting otherwise--but it's a loophole that ought to be closed. Money made here ought to be taxed here--that's fair in my view--and in some cases right now, it's not happening.

Actually they don't avoid ALL the taxes...just half. They move their headquarters to other countries. They STILL pay taxes on the monies earned here, just as BMW does...but not in other countries. The US taxes corporations at a much higher level than foreign countries. Kerry taxing them more is going to make them even LESS competitive.

So we will prevent companies from moving? What are we, the Soviet Union now?

Do you know WHY these companies move out of the US?

BMW makes cars in the US and sells them here....they pay taxes on the money thay make here to the US...not to Germany.

Ford makes and sells cars in Germany....they pay taxes on the money they make in Germany to Germany....but ALSO to the US. So they are at a disadvantage because the US requires them to pay taxes on foreign income. So companies move out of the US to avoid the double taxation. Do away with that and they will be more competitive AND they will not move away. Unfortunately, congress has never seen a dollar they did not like to tax.
but taxes taste like candy

Well I would imagine that if the senior citizens ever found out the following, they would give the Republicans a serious kick in the pants at the polls:

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

In just the past 12 months, you have increased the national debt by $544 billion. More importantly, you have stolen $371 billion from the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, the reason I say stolen is if you take it back and you do not have a plan to repay it, it is stealing. If someone pays on their payroll taxes toward Social Security, they fully expect it to be put in a trust fund just for Social Security and that it is going to be sitting there for when they need it.

That is not the plan, Mr. Speaker. I would encourage you or any of my colleagues to tell me the name of the bank account that the Social Security trust fund is put in. Because you know and I know there is not a dime in it. It is nothing but IOUs, government securities.

You have borrowed $167 billion from Medicare, the same thing. Hard-working Americans pay payroll taxes. On that payroll tax is a line item that goes to Medicare with the promise that it would be set aside just for their retirement. There is not a penny there.

Military retirement, the Federal employees' retirement, we owe the Federal employees' retirement system, Mr. Speaker, over $500 billion. There are laws that would have prevented you back when you were in your medical practice from dipping into your employees' retirement fund for any reason, good or bad. If you had done so, you would have gone to jail. There is not a penny in the Federal employees' retirement fund. Yet you continue to borrow against it to disguise the true nature of the American debt.

You borrowed $314 billion from foreign investors, and my buddy from Cuba will love this one, because you have borrowed $52.5 billion from Communist China. You have borrowed $122 billion from Japan. We now owe $1.3 trillion to foreign nations and investors, including $122 billion to Communist China. Tell me you are proud of that. Tell me the Republican majority is proud that we owe $122 billion to China and that $50 billion a year of American tax dollars go to pay interest on what we owe just to foreigners like the Communist Chinese. Our children will have to pay back China, Japan, our foreign creditors before they can even get back to paying what we should have paid all along to Social Security, Medicare and the retirement funds. They have to repay our debts before they ever repay theirs.

This is the Republican place in history. You are responsible for more deficit spending this year than in any year in American history. Tell me you are proud of that. You are responsible for the largest increase in the national debt in American history. Tell me you are proud of that.

Not only would the seniors not be amused, I am sure many members of the military would be interested too.

The Republicans have added over $1.5 Trillion in debt to the US National Debt and in a rough calculation, this works out to $5,172 NEW debt for every man, woman, and child in the US.

Perhaps this might add up for more votes for Kerry.

HA HA HA!! Opinion. Just becase some Democratic representative says it on the House floor doesn't make it true. It's mostly partisan rhetoric.