NationStates Jolt Archive

Again, after another speech that is very damaging to the democratic party, the dems are rushing to do damage control.
For the second night in a row, they are having Edwards go in front of the media to denounce all nondemocrats as liars, bigots and racists.
The fact here is, that Democrats are out of touch with mainstream America.
They don't realize the issue is not the economy, the issue is terrorism and the fact is that dems are soft on terrorism.

Here's a question:

If President Bush is so stupid, how was he so successful in "misleading" two smart guys like Kerry and Edwards into voting for the war? And why would you elect somebody who is so easily misled?

The fact here is, that Democrats are out of touch with mainstream America. They don't realize the issue is not the economy, the issue is terrorism and the fact is that dems are soft on terrorism.

That's putting it mildly.

That's putting it mildly.
I'm just being conservative about it. :)

Holy crap, it's a gay Bush loving sausage fest :eek:

Alright, let's see if I can put this into perspective.

Terrorism really ISN'T a fucking huge threat. It's as bad as it's ever been. Sure, there's reason for concern, but not enough to base your entire platform around. Maybe a couple thousand people per year die due to terrorism in the U.S., a country of millions. Their immediate family and friends are affected.

The economy is the most important thing there is. If Bush maintains power, he'll keep driving the U.S. into the ground, causing job losses numbering probably between 800,000 to one million. Meanwhile, after Democrat Bill Clinton brought the U.S. to a record surplus, Bush plunged it back down to a record deficit, making him officially the worst U.S. President in history when it comes to finances. Everybody in the U.S. is affected.

Bush spent absurd amounts of money on foreign ventures that pissed everyone off, and more often than not, faile dmiserably, and sent far too many troops to die for a war that was completely unnecessary, and, had it become necessary, could easily have been done quickly and more efficiently. And to add to that, he can't even outfit them in modern protection.

So, tell me the things that Bush has done to BETTER America.

Alright, let's see if I can put this into perspective.

Terrorism really ISN'T a fucking huge threat. It's as bad as it's ever been. Sure, there's reason for concern, but not enough to base your entire platform around. Maybe a couple thousand people per year die due to terrorism in the U.S., a country of millions. Their immediate family and friends are affected.

The economy is the most important thing there is. If Bush maintains power, he'll keep driving the U.S. into the ground, causing job losses numbering probably between 800,000 to one million. Meanwhile, after Democrat Bill Clinton brought the U.S. to a record surplus, Bush plunged it back down to a record deficit, making him officially the worst U.S. President in history when it comes to finances. Everybody in the U.S. is affected.

Bush spent absurd amounts of money on foreign ventures that pissed everyone off, and more often than not, faile dmiserably, and sent far too many troops to die for a war that was completely unnecessary, and, had it become necessary, could easily have been done quickly and more efficiently. And to add to that, he can't even outfit them in modern protection.

So, tell me the things that Bush has done to BETTER America.


Its terrorism stupid.

Recent MSNBC poll:
Bush 52%
Kerry 45%

Bush is getting 4 more years.

Again, after another speech that is very damaging to the democratic party, the dems are rushing to do damage control.
For the second night in a row, they are having Edwards go in front of the media to denounce all nondemocrats as liars, bigots and racists.
The fact here is, that Democrats are out of touch with mainstream America.
They don't realize the issue is not the economy, the issue is terrorism and the fact is that dems are soft on terrorism.
And Kerry is passing Flat out lies as truth, and the Sheeple that are his supporters are lapping it up.

Kerry Fled

Again, after another speech that is very damaging to the democratic party, the dems are rushing to do damage control.
For the second night in a row, they are having Edwards go in front of the media to denounce all nondemocrats as liars, bigots and racists.
The fact here is, that Democrats are out of touch with mainstream America.
They don't realize the issue is not the economy, the issue is terrorism and the fact is that dems are soft on terrorism.

You may not have realized it, but you have perfectly proved one of my points.....The President should be able to deal with all of America's problems, not just with the "War on Terror"....What if FDR said that we didn't need to work on the economy, because of the rebuilding of Germany's military during the Depression? Or that we shouldn't worry about Germany because the economy was the greater problem? Besides, the "War on Terror" is a joke, he has alienated all our allies, strained our military, given Bin Laden the perfect recruitment for Al Qaeda, gave us misleading evidence to go to the war into the war in Iraq, plus he has opposed many legislations by Democrats to better secure our ports and borders, and he has only killed an estimated 10% of Al-Qaeda's forces. Plus John Kerry and Edwards voted for authorization to go to war if necessary, but not as poorly planned as this president did it. Here is a brief list of things that he has done to alienate our allies and make us less secure.

Alienating our Allies (These are some of the treaties he has left or abandoned)

Kyoto Protocol (About Global Warming)
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (Bans nuclear testing North Korea, India, Pakistan, and the US are the only countries with nuclear weapons not to sign the treaty)
Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty (Signed in 1972, reduced the possiblity of a nuclear attack by the US or USSR)
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (States that nations without WMD's will refrain from gaining them, and nations with WMD's will refrain from selling or using them)
Biological Weapons Convention (Abandoned by George Bush after ten years of negotiating)
Conference on banning illicit trade in small and light arms (First attempt by the International Community to stop the trading of small arms into countries that are aiding Terrorism and Rebels, opposed by the US because of the Right Wing Second Amendment Supporters)


Strong Leader

November 14, 2001 Bush opposes 15 billion dollars from Senate Democrats for homeland security. Reason "Permanent spending on other projects that have nothing to do with stimulus and that will only expand the size of government"

December 4, 2001 Senate Approriations Committe votes 29-0 on a bill that includes 13.1 billion for himeland security, Bush threatens to Veto it.

December 6, 2001 Senate Republicans reduce homeland security funding in the Defense Appropriations bill by 4.6 billion

December 19, 2001 Congerees under pressure from the White House reduce funds by 200 million. This reduction comes from airport security, nuclear facility security, and postal security/

June 7, 2002 The Senate, by a bipartisan vite if 71-22 passes a spending bill that includes 8.3 billion for homeland security, the next day, the president senior advisors recommend a veto of this "excessive homeland security spending"

August 13, 2002 Bush decides not to spend the 2.5 billion in emergency funding for homeland security he says that his decision was because of "Fiscal responsiblity"

Febuary 3, 2003 Bush submits his 2004 budget, it reduces the budget for homeland security programs by 1.9 percent

March 2, 2003 Republicans beat down 7 amendments aimed at increasing homeland security

April 2, 2003 Senator Fritz Holling of South Carolina offers an admendment to provide 1 billion for port security, Republicans reject the amendment by a vote of 47-52

April 3, 2003 Republicans reject five more pro-homeland security amendments aimed to protect commerical aircraft from the threat of shoulder fired missiles

June 2003 Republicans reject a Democratic amendment to add 1 billion on homeland defense by trimming a piece of the tax break for 200,000 millionaires from $88,000 to $83,000

Bush and the Republicans did all of this while supporting many 1.5 Trillion dollar tax cuts and fighting the "War on Terror"

They don't realize the issue is not the economy, the issue is terrorismRight, and Bush is doing all that he can do to create more terrorists, and therefore terrorism.

Terrorism really ISN'T a fucking huge threat. It's as bad as it's ever been. Sure, there's reason for concern, but not enough to base your entire platform around. Maybe a couple thousand people per year die due to terrorism in the U.S., a country of millions. Their immediate family and friends are affected.

This is the stupidest thing I have ever read, and that says a lot. What people don't realize is that the terrorists are attacking the economy. So we allow them to attack the economy at will and there will be no economy to worry about.

The Democrats see the terrorists as criminals and want to bring them into court. Yeah, that will work. :rolleyes: No, you do not fight a "sensitive" war with these guys, you get into the trenches with them and you take them out. THATS how you protect the economy AND fight terrorism at the ame time.

like arnold said:
stop beign economic girlie men!
the unemployment rate has gone down to 5.4%, the economy added 144,000 jobs in august, and now a newly revised 78,000 for july ( twice as many as originally reported) and now bushs job deficit is only at 908,000.If he doesnt get elected, i bet you by january when he leaves office, that he would have a surplus again.

and then kerry goes into office, with nothing to do, because bush took all the shit and did all the hard work, and kerry is just gunna reap the benefits.

iraq gets elections, they succeed, they build an army and by next year we cut down our number of troops needed, and kerry gets to reap the benefits.

the deficit gets cut in half, which was already projected and being put into action right now, but kerry, again will reap all the benefits.

If Bush wins again, it proves the majority of Americans ARE idiots and will deserve what they get.

Alright, let's see if I can put this into perspective.

Terrorism really ISN'T a fucking huge threat. It's as bad as it's ever been. Sure, there's reason for concern, but not enough to base your entire platform around. Maybe a couple thousand people per year die due to terrorism in the U.S., a country of millions. Their immediate family and friends are affected.
You selfish ass. I bet it would be a huge threat if it was YOU or YOUR FAMILY being murdered. Look at what happened at that school in Russia. What if that was YOUR school or YOUR children?
The economy is the most important thing there is. If Bush maintains power, he'll keep driving the U.S. into the ground, causing job losses numbering probably between 800,000 to one million.
Well, the numbers are out and...144,000 NEW JOBS were created last month alone. The unemployment rate CONTINUES TO DROP to 5.4%, which is a smidge LESS than the BEST number under Clinton.
Meanwhile, after Democrat Bill Clinton brought the U.S. to a record surplus, Bush plunged it back down to a record deficit, making him officially the worst U.S. President in history when it comes to finances. Everybody in the U.S. is affected.
Bush inherited a recession that began, depending on the area examined, as early as 1999, but was certainly full-blown (no pun intended) before Clinton left office.
Bush spent absurd amounts of money on foreign ventures that pissed everyone off, and more often than not, faile dmiserably [sic], and sent far too many troops to die for a war that was completely unnecessary, and, had it become necessary, could easily have been done quickly and more efficiently. And to add to that, he can't even outfit them in modern protection.
Unnecessary according to you. For every person who says it was unnecessary, I can find one that says it was necessary. There are over 40 MILLION more people living under a responsible government instead of murderous tyrants. Trans-national terrorists have been killed, captured, or driven into hidey holes. The U.S. is building schools, hospitals, water treatment facilities, and power plants that Iraq and Afghanistan never had before; their infrastructure is better than it was under the tyrants. And I could go on...
So, tell me the things that Bush has done to BETTER America.
Okay...
The economy has grown 4.8% in the past year, as fast as any year in nearly two decades. Productivity grew at the fastest 3-year rate in more than 50 years. Since last August, over 1.6 million new jobs have been created.
The unemployment rate has fallen from 6.3 to 5.4 percent, below the average of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. This job growth is widespread – employment over the last year was up in 41 of the 50 states, and the unemployment rate was down in 47 of the 50 states. And again, I could go on...

Strong Leader

November 14, 2001 Bush opposes 15 billion dollars from Senate Democrats for homeland security. Reason "Permanent spending on other projects that have nothing to do with stimulus and that will only expand the size of government"

December 4, 2001 Senate Approriations Committe votes 29-0 on a bill that includes 13.1 billion for himeland security, Bush threatens to Veto it.

December 6, 2001 Senate Republicans reduce homeland security funding in the Defense Appropriations bill by 4.6 billion

December 19, 2001 Congerees under pressure from the White House reduce funds by 200 million. This reduction comes from airport security, nuclear facility security, and postal security/

June 7, 2002 The Senate, by a bipartisan vite if 71-22 passes a spending bill that includes 8.3 billion for homeland security, the next day, the president senior advisors recommend a veto of this "excessive homeland security spending"

August 13, 2002 Bush decides not to spend the 2.5 billion in emergency funding for homeland security he says that his decision was because of "Fiscal responsiblity"

Febuary 3, 2003 Bush submits his 2004 budget, it reduces the budget for homeland security programs by 1.9 percent

March 2, 2003 Republicans beat down 7 amendments aimed at increasing homeland security

April 2, 2003 Senator Fritz Holling of South Carolina offers an admendment to provide 1 billion for port security, Republicans reject the amendment by a vote of 47-52

April 3, 2003 Republicans reject five more pro-homeland security amendments aimed to protect commerical aircraft from the threat of shoulder fired missiles

June 2003 Republicans reject a Democratic amendment to add 1 billion on homeland defense by trimming a piece of the tax break for 200,000 millionaires from $88,000 to $83,000

Bush and the Republicans did all of this while supporting many 1.5 Trillion dollar tax cuts and fighting the "War on Terror"

Don't forget Star Wars! Lasers in space!

Bush has

a) failed to capture Osama bin Laden

b) failed to act on repeated warnings before 9/11, from the likes of Richard Clarke, a remnant of the Clinton era

c) blocked the creation of the 9/11 Commission for over a year after the attacks.

These three facts alone make him undeserving of a second term.

How do you know that Democrats are soft on terrorism? Wasn't it Clinton's staff that formulated and implemented plans to fight al-Qaeda?

Here's a simple example:
1993: World Trade Centre of New York gets bombed 38 days into Clinton's presidency. The men responsible, Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah, were captured and imprisoned.

2001: World Trade Centre of New York gets destroyed 224 days into Bush's presidency. The people responsible are still at large three years on.

George Bush has proven that he is not up to the job of defending America from terrorism. I don't know how good Kerry would be, but he would probably be better than what we've had these past four years.

If President Bush is so stupid, how was he so successful in "misleading" two smart guys like Kerry and Edwards into voting for the war? And why would you elect somebody who is so easily misled?
Why would you re-elect a lying president who misleads?

This is the stupidest thing I have ever read, and that says a lot. What people don't realize is that the terrorists are attacking the economy. So we allow them to attack the economy at will and there will be no economy to worry about.

The Democrats see the terrorists as criminals and want to bring them into court. Yeah, that will work. :rolleyes: No, you do not fight a "sensitive" war with these guys, you get into the trenches with them and you take them out. THATS how you protect the economy AND fight terrorism at the ame time.

With regards to your first sentence, perhaps you should re-read your own post then.

The concept of unilateral military action against other countries based on such flimsy evidence (WMDs, terrorists), is a genuinely crazy one.

You mention 'these guys' and 'them', but who the fuck are you talking about? What the hell is a terrorist anyway- technically it's someone who uses terror/fear to achieve a political end (according to the dictionary)- but if we were to take into account the US's 'doctrine of pre-emption' and even it's 'shock and awe' campaign in Iraq, then they themselves fit into this category. Bottom line: the world is not the black/white place the these idiot neo-cons (specifically: Rumsfled, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle) dream it to be. Check out www.newamericancentury.org - take a look at their statement of principles section, scroll down and note the signitories and the date (1997). These guys have wanted Iraq for years, this WMD and terrorist link crap was just the most convenient way of doing so.

"Sensitive War on Terror", for your own sake, I sincerely hope the US adopts this policy regardless of who wins. Do you honestly expect people to swallow crap like that used to 'justify' the Iraq war and not object (oh wait, disagreeing with potentially disasterous military action is such a horrendous thing for an ally to do) and then expect support for the US to remain at it's post-9/11 peak. Bush and his idiots have pissed away a golden opportunity for America to actually work out the real trouble spots around the globe (Isreal, NK, Taiwan/China, Kashmir) so that they can acheive their own neo-con based agenda, which has had nothing but disasterous results.

Kerry doesn't want the UN to control the US military (please tell me you don't honestly beleive that particular peice of republican hyperbole), but he has at least realized that anti- US terrorism gains its support from those with a particular hatred of the US: so the logical thing to do would be to present the US as an international force of reason and peace, not launching bullshit wars of no relevance to the war on terror (interesting flip-flop of Bush's recently too). The best way to do this: the closest thing we have to an international political forum: the UN. Note the contrast between support for the US in the 1991 conflict and the current one, and how the US was not so universally ridiculed and regarded with contempt. Even more critical is when said wars have even drained the enormous pro-US support from the European allies and others that would normally have been more than willing to provide military aid etc in actual, direct conflicts with terrorists. This is not the Cold War, it no longer makes sense to label someone or some country to be a 'rouge nation' or some such crap and launch what can easily be perceived as nothing but aggression on the part of the US.

Democracy in Iraq- interesting concept. How long will it even last is the question I would be posing. Consider this: roughly 80% of Iraq belongs to a fundamentalist Islamic faction called the Shi'ites, whose clergy generally holds a slightly resentful attitude towards the US. Now, what has been the one stabil factor in most Iraqis lives under Saddam and the war(s)? Religion. Give them a vote, and almost definately they will vote for a group which has provided them with stablity, but also a system which they can understand (based on religion) and appeals to their spirituality.

How many fundamentalist Islamic countries hold happy, stable relationships with the US?

Alienating our Allies (These are some of the treaties he has left or abandoned)

Kyoto Protocol (About Global Warming)
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (Bans nuclear testing North Korea, India, Pakistan, and the US are the only countries with nuclear weapons not to sign the treaty)
Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty (Signed in 1972, reduced the possiblity of a nuclear attack by the US or USSR)
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (States that nations without WMD's will refrain from gaining them, and nations with WMD's will refrain from selling or using them)
Biological Weapons Convention (Abandoned by George Bush after ten years of negotiating)
Conference on banning illicit trade in small and light arms (First attempt by the International Community to stop the trading of small arms into countries that are aiding Terrorism and Rebels, opposed by the US because of the Right Wing Second Amendment Supporters)

You know Kyoto was rejected unanimously, almost Democrats and Republicans (2 abstained I think), by the US Senate? There was no way in hell it was going to be passed. And you blame it on Bush. :rolleyes:
I have no problem leaving or stopping discussions about treaties that are either outdated (ABM) or serve us in no way.

Here's a simple example:
1993: World Trade Centre of New York gets bombed 38 days into Clinton's presidency. The men responsible, Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah, were captured and imprisoned.
2001: World Trade Centre of New York gets destroyed 224 days into Bush's presidency. The people responsible are still at large three years on.
Deceitful, deceitful, deceitful, you are...Yousef wasn't captured until TWO YEARS after the first WTC bombing. You neglected to mention THAT, didn't you? Given that luck plays a large role in the search for terrorists - and any counter-terrorism expert will tell you that - there is not much of a difference between two years or three years or four years. You are MISLEADING.
George Bush has proven that he is not up to the job of defending America from terrorism. I don't know how good Kerry would be, but he would probably be better than what we've had these past four years.
Really? There have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. That is a PERFECT record of "defending America from terrorism", isn't it? How can Kerry be BETTER THAN PERFECT?

Deceitful, deceitful, deceitful, you are...Yousef wasn't captured until TWO YEARS after the first WTC bombing. You neglected to mention THAT, didn't you? Given that luck plays a large role in the search for terrorists - and any counter-terrorism expert will tell you that - there is not much of a difference between two years or three years or four years. You are MISLEADING.


Of course, "luck" is helped by staying focused on the issue. Less than a year after 9-11 GW clearly stated that catching Bin Laden wasn't a priority. Well most people think it should have been!

Also, looking at the arrest and conviction records within the US for al qaeda members (which is pretty much non-existant by the way), you have to assume that this attack was carried out with no ground support.

Incidentally - what ever happened to the Anthrax investigation? Did they get the people behind that at least? No?

So the arrest record for Bush's team at solving these crimes and dealing with the perpetrators on domestic soil is almost nonexistant.

Really? There have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. That is a PERFECT record of "defending America from terrorism", isn't it? How can Kerry be BETTER THAN PERFECT?

This would mean something if such attacks were common events. Indeed, the logical extension to that idea could be that given there were no Al Qaeda attacks on US soil from '93 to the end of his term that Clinton was even better at combatting terrorism than Bush! Seven years attack-free instead of three!


Woohoo! Clinton is THE MAN!



Somehow I doubt that you will accept that statement with the same zeal that you attach to your use of this figure regarding GW.....

You know Kyoto was rejected unanimously, almost Democrats and Republicans (2 abstained I think), by the US Senate? There was no way in hell it was going to be passed. And you blame it on Bush. :rolleyes:
I have no problem leaving or stopping discussions about treaties that are either outdated (ABM) or serve us in no way.

1) Then why did Bush say that he was going to meet with his cabinet and come up with a revised verson of Kyoto because a large number of citizens didn't like the governments position, it's been 3 years, and I'm still waiting...

2) ABM is in no way out dated, by dropping out of the treaty, we are telling China and Russia that they need to build more nuclear weapons so that we won't get out of MAD, in other words, we are taking a gamble at creating a second arms race.....US vs China and Russia....Also, when we tell other nations that we aren't going to refrain from using nuclear weapons, then how will it look to the rest of the world when we demand that North Korea or Iran give up their Nuclear weapons?

3) Bush didn't inherit a "Clinton Recession", look at the statistics of the NBER, it clearly states that we were not in a Recession when Bush took office, it started tanking 2 months after Bush took office.....Exactly the same time that those dumb tax cuts were issued.....

Terrorism really ISN'T a fucking huge threat. It's as bad as it's ever been. Sure, there's reason for concern, but not enough to base your entire platform around. Maybe a couple thousand people per year die due to terrorism in the U.S., a country of millions. Their immediate family and friends are affected.

This is just stupid. There is no conventional military threat to the US right now. The biggest external threat to America right now is a terrorist getting a hold of enough weapons grade Uranium, packing it in a suitcase bomb, and detonating in a major US city. Why don't people understand how very real this scenario. Nuclear proliferation is so rampant now, our ports are almost impossible to guard even to a level of 10%. Oh and by the way, look at the effect 9/11 had on the world economy. 3000 died, millions suffered.

The concept of unilateral military action against other countries based on such flimsy evidence (WMDs, terrorists), is a genuinely crazy one.

I love how if the French and Germans are against it, it is unilateral. Those other 30 plus nations don't count.

3) Bush didn't inherit a "Clinton Recession", look at the statistics of the NBER, it clearly states that we were not in a Recession when Bush took office, it started tanking 2 months after Bush took office.....Exactly the same time that those dumb tax cuts were issued.....

Are you serious? Anybody who doesn't understand that the technology boom and bust of the late 90s caused this recession isn't too bright.

This would mean something if such attacks were common events. Indeed, the logical extension to that idea could be that given there were no Al Qaeda attacks on US soil from '93 to the end of his term that Clinton was even better at combatting terrorism than Bush! Seven years attack-free instead of three!

Embassies are considered US Soil FYI....

Deceitful, deceitful, deceitful, you are...Yousef wasn't captured until TWO YEARS after the first WTC bombing. You neglected to mention THAT, didn't you? Given that luck plays a large role in the search for terrorists - and any counter-terrorism expert will tell you that - there is not much of a difference between two years or three years or four years. You are MISLEADING.
OK, you got me there. But!

1. Osama bin Laden is the leader of al-Qaeda. He is arguably a much more important man to capture than Yousef. This has not been done yet. In fact, Bush even said it wasn't important to him.

2. They should have caught OBL already. I accept that luck is a part of it, but Bush poured troops into Afghanistan. Why didn't thousands of troops find him? By logic they should have a better chance of catching the man than they did of catching Yousef.

3. Bush has said it wasn't important to him to catch bin Laden in 2002. We're in 2004. Is it likely that he will be caught if he's not being searched for?

The fact that mass murderer OBL hasn't been caught yet, and that the US is barely searching for him is disgusting.

The fact that mass murderer OBL hasn't been caught yet, and that the US is barely searching for him is disgusting.

You are kidding yourself if you believe that. The world is a big place though. Look how long it took to catch Saddam in just Iraq with over a hundred thousand troops on the ground and a population with a majority of Shites and Kurds who were repressed under him and would love to see him captured.

Really? There have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. That is a PERFECT record of "defending America from terrorism", isn't it? How can Kerry be BETTER THAN PERFECT?

Galtania, I have a magical rock to sell you. It repels tigers. Since I have that rock, I have never been attacked by tigers. NEVER.

Besides, wasn't there some enveloppes with white powder in the US mainland since 9/11?

1) Then why did Bush say that he was going to meet with his cabinet and come up with a revised verson of Kyoto because a large number of citizens didn't like the governments position, it's been 3 years, and I'm still waiting...
I guess his version was the clean air act or whatever was passed.

2) ABM is in no way out dated, by dropping out of the treaty, we are telling China and Russia that they need to build more nuclear weapons so that we won't get out of MAD, in other words, we are taking a gamble at creating a second arms race.....US vs China and Russia....Also, when we tell other nations that we aren't going to refrain from using nuclear weapons, then how will it look to the rest of the world when we demand that North Korea or Iran give up their Nuclear weapons?
The ABMT is outdated. There is no reason for a new arms race. Both the USA and Russia already have enough nukes on their own to destroy the world mutiple times over, and China isn't quite as advanced as Russia but its slowly gaining capabilities. It won't create a new arms race though, why would there be one? The Cold War isn't going on anymore. And it might look a bit hypocritical, but who cares? We're not talking about lobbing ICBMs at large population centers, but things like tactical bunker busters that might be the only way to quickly penetrate certain areas.

3) Bush didn't inherit a "Clinton Recession", look at the statistics of the NBER, it clearly states that we were not in a Recession when Bush took office, it started tanking 2 months after Bush took office.....Exactly the same time that those dumb tax cuts were issued.....
Well I didn't say that Bush did, but, being in a recession according to the NBER and actually being in one are two different things. George Bush Sr. claimed we weren't in a recession when it was clear the economic climate was not good, so although the technical criteria might not have been met, there was still a general feeling similar to that of a recession.

3) Bush didn't inherit a "Clinton Recession", look at the statistics of the NBER, it clearly states that we were not in a Recession when Bush took office, it started tanking 2 months after Bush took office.....Exactly the same time that those dumb tax cuts were issued.....

A recession doesn't start on day one of an economic downturn. "Recession" is a defined level of severity. That downturn started months before Clinton left office. That has never been in dispute.

The Democrats see the terrorists as criminals and want to bring them into court. Yeah, that will work. :rolleyes: No, you do not fight a "sensitive" war with these guys, you get into the trenches with them and you take them out. THATS how you protect the economy AND fight terrorism at the ame time.
If they had trenches they'd be a military and not terrorists. Terrorists did what they did with box-cutters and no amount of Bradley fighting vehicles could have done anything about it. Bulldog foriegn policy is what makes people think that their only recourse is to ram a plane into a building. Bush is wrong minded on the subject, using old techniques to fight new enemies. Time for change.

Really? There have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. That is a PERFECT record of "defending America from terrorism", isn't it? How can Kerry be BETTER THAN PERFECT?

Well it's an intersting concept but all it proves is that they haven't wanted to hit in as spectacular a fashion as Sept 11th. It doesn't mean that Bush has protected it just means the terrorists' timetable isn't ours. People are under the supposition that if the terrorists could have struck again they would have. Why? I'd wager that when and if they want to they will at a time of THEIR choosing.

Lets see.......I'm sure you would all like to say that George Bush inherited a recession in January, but according to NBER it was in March, two months after he took office.....Let me say this again, the economic consensus as represented by the National Bureau of Economic Research is that we entered a recession in March of 2001, two months after Geroge Bush took office...NBER put out a report in November 2001 that said that "a peak in business activity in the US economy occured in March 2001" In other words when Bush came into office we weren't in a recession. We weren't sliding into one. We weren't diving into one. And Bush sure as hell didn't inherit one. It's that simple......Now some of the smarter Bush supporters will say something like "Well maybe the recession did start when he was in office, what is he supposed to do in 2 months?"....But by March of 2001, most of the components of Bush's tax cuts had already passed out of committee in the house of representatives....Plain and simple, it's Bushes recession.....

Now for ABM, This treaty limited the US and the Soviets to deploying a single land based system to defend against against ballistic missiles...Bush doesn't like it because it would interfer with his national missile defense system. By tearing up this treaty before we have a proven missile defense. George Bush managed to piss off China and Russia and send them a message that if they intend to be able to stay in a mutually assured destruction standoff with us. They have one thing they can do, build more missiles....Thats called an arms race........Oh, and I fogot to mention that Bush left the ICC (International Criminal Court), supported by every administration since WW2......

Now for ABM, This treaty limited the US and the Soviets to deploying a single land based system to defend against against ballistic missiles...Bush doesn't like it because it would interfer with his national missile defense system. By tearing up this treaty before we have a proven missile defense. George Bush managed to piss off China and Russia and send them a message that if they intend to be able to stay in a mutually assured destruction standoff with us. They have one thing they can do, build more missiles....Thats called an arms race........Oh, and I fogot to mention that Bush left the ICC (International Criminal Court), supported by every administration since WW2......
We needed to tear up the treaty in order to continue with our tests to build a proper defense. Russia and China have nothing to fear. They know that they have enough missiles to flood the defenses - and that the real reason we're building it is against a rogue nation like North Korea lobbing two or three over that can easily be shot down.

Again, after another speech that is very damaging to the democratic party, the dems are rushing to do damage control.
For the second night in a row, they are having Edwards go in front of the media to denounce all nondemocrats as liars, bigots and racists.
The fact here is, that Democrats are out of touch with mainstream America.
They don't realize the issue is not the economy, the issue is terrorism and the fact is that dems are soft on terrorism.


You are incredibly, incredibly naive if you think that, at the end of the day, anyone cares about anything more than their wallets.

The biggest damage control has been done this week by Clinton being in the hospital; who can overshadow that?

Kerry Fled
You say that so often, yet you never explain why you feel that way. At least not that I've seen. If you have explained your position, could you link me to it, and if not could you please do so?

The fact here is, that Democrats are out of touch with mainstream America.

Because the Democrats have become radical commie-Stalinists right?

Besides, wasn't there some enveloppes with white powder in the US mainland since 9/11?
Maybe it was Bush's cocaine. ;)

You say that so often, yet you never explain why you feel that way. At least not that I've seen. If you have explained your position, could you link me to it, and if not could you please do so?
i asked him to explain it once, he just turned belligerent

the economy added 144,000 jobs in august, and now a newly revised 78,000 for july ( twice as many as originally reported) and now bushs job deficit is only at 908,000.
"Only" 908 000. Wow, what an amazing economic miracle he's done in ensuring that there's now close to one million more ppl out of work than there were when he was elected. :rolleyes:
BTW can someone explain how the unemployment figure drop when there's been a net loss of jobs?
The only way I can figure it, is that they've changed the way they assess unemployment figures. Probably, they're not including ppl who have been unemployed for more than 6 months. Something like that. It happened in NZ during the early nineties. The National (read conservative) government changed the rules over how to classify unemployed ppl. If you had been out of work for more than a year, even though you still got the unemployment benefit, you weren't classified as unemployed. They then trumpetted the amazing 'reduction' in the unemployment rate as proof their policies were working.

"Only" 908 000. Wow, what an amazing economic miracle he's done in ensuring that there's now close to one million more ppl out of work than there were when he was elected. :rolleyes:
BTW can someone explain how the unemployment figure drop when there's been a net loss of jobs?
The only way I can figure it, is that they've changed the way they assess unemployment figures. Probably, they're not including ppl who have been unemployed for more than 6 months. Something like that. It happened in NZ during the early nineties. The National (read conservative) government changed the rules over how to classify unemployed ppl. If you had been out of work for more than a year, even though you still got the unemployment benefit, you weren't classified as unemployed. They then trumpetted the amazing 'reduction' in the unemployment rate as proof their policies were working.
Unemployment has always been calculated like that, sorry. The "Jobs" number and the employed/unemployed numbers are two different things, though - total employment is up since Bush took office.

Unemployment has always been calculated like that, sorry. The "Jobs" number and the employed/unemployed numbers are two different things, though - total employment is up since Bush took office.
i assume you have something to cite to prove that

i assume you have something to cite to prove that
Sure Chess. Because of the way the site works, I can't give you a direct link, but you can follow the instructions so get there :
http://stats.bls.gov/

Click on "Get Detailed Statistics"

then "Access to Historical Data for the "A"...."

then "Table A-1..."

Check "Employed" under the Seasonally Adjusted column, go down to the bottom of the page, and hit the button, viola, its there : January 2001 the number is 137790, this month its 139681.

Sure Chess. Because of the way the site works, I can't give you a direct link, but you can follow the instructions so get there :
http://stats.bls.gov/

Click on "Get Detailed Statistics"

then "Access to Historical Data for the "A"...."

then "Table A-1..."

Check "Employed" under the Seasonally Adjusted column, go down to the bottom of the page, and hit the button, viola, its there : January 2001 the number is 137790, this month its 139681.
employment-population: Jan 2001: 64.4, this month: 62.4

unemployment level: jan 2001: 5997, this month: 8022
unemployment rate: jan 2001: 4.2, this month: 5.4

If President Bush is so stupid, how was he so successful in "misleading" two smart guys like Kerry and Edwards into voting for the war? Because rich brats always stick together when the shit hits the fan.