NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush is now more unpopular than he's ever been, since taking office. Even Fox News' "O'Relly Factor" just brought this up and the stand-in host mentioned this. Three polls (USA Today/CNN/Gallup) done on Bush's popularity have shown that only 45% believe Bush is doing a good job, as opposed to 52%, just a few weeks ago. The O'Relly Factor specifically mentioned that statistics have shown he's particularly lost support in his strongest demographic: church-goers. They say that this is because church-members are skeptical of his motivation for being involved with the Schiavo case. Nothing really being done about prison torture is also surely also a reason.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=8004996&src=rss/politicsNews
http://g.msn.com/0MNBUS00/3?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7295338/&&CE=3032552
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/opinion/polls/printable682674.shtml

Other reasons for Bush's current unpopularity are:

Bush was silent on the school shootings at Red Lake (although yesterday, he spoke privately to the chairman of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa, for five minutes).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64317-2005Mar24.html

Three Iraqi journalists, working for Reuters, claimed they were tortured in Iraq and there was little investigation.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/2005/03/003290.html

Bush is selling F-16s to India and Pakistan, as rewards for being our allies against terrorists. Liberals say this could create more conflict in that area. Many people in the past have been afraid of a nuclear, world war starting between India and Pakistan. India is proposing a supposed $3 billion for planes over 5 years. This would create social unrest, causing their starving population to protest, just as when they started funding the space program.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/03/16/india.rice.ap/

As said before, even Conservatives are skeptical of Bush's motivations in the Schiavo case, because of the Texas law he'd signed in 1999, allowing doctors to pull the plug, even if the person had a living will or a directive forbidding it. (It has nothing to do with whether or not you can afford it. It is completely at the doctor's whim.)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=602214
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/national/22bush.html

Gas prices have continued to soar, being pushed even higher by the massive explosion of a Texas oil refinery.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/21/ap/business/mainD88V5OQ00.shtml

EDIT:
Conservatives are also outraged over Bush calling civilians forming their own border patrol "vigilantes", as well as because he suggests loosening immigration policies.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1369694/posts

EDIT:
Oh, and let's not forget that Bush is destroying Social Security as well, by letting people take their money and out put it into the stock market. Many of the elderly, once again, Bush's primary voting base, are skeptical of his plan to allow Social Security money to be put into private accounts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35231-2005Mar14.html

There's a great deal of facts on the BillionairesForBush eBay page (before it was taken down). Among them are that Social Security will not go bankrupt for almost 50 years. The Bush administration repeatedly says it's going bankrupt, broke, and bust, but what they don't mention is when. Other countries which privatized Social Security faced huge deficits. It's a stable program right now. It doesn't need to be fucked with.
http://billionairesforbush.com/ebay/index.html

I hope he goes down for the count this time.

It doesn't matter if what he does is popular, hes in his last term
:p

It doesn't matter if what he does is popular, hes in his last term
:p

As far as I'm concerned, his first term should've been his last.

Maybe if he screws up enough people won't keep electing right-wing corporate whores.

I hope he goes down for the count this time.

Yeah...

It's called four more years, minus just over 2 months!

:D

And then we get another "Battle Royale" for the White House.

I can only hope the Liberals do everything just like last time!

Regards,
Gaar

Maybe if he screws up enough people won't keep electing right-wing corporate whores.

Hopefully. But, don't get your hopes up... A lot of Bush voters were (and still are) very clueless people.

I got in a huge arguement in the copy store with some clueless twit. I was copying store making copies of some Bush info just before the election. She asked if I was voting for Bush. I told her I'd sooner vote for Satan.
Her: Oh goodness, I hope not.
Me: No, I'm serious.
Her: But he's a good man and a good Christian!
Me: How do you know he's a good Christian?
Her: I know him.
Me: Personally?
Her: Of course not. But everyone says so.
Me: Do you get info from anyone but Fox?
Her: No, I don't need to.
Me: Ever read anything from independent news sources?
Her: I don't need to.

It deteriorated from there. I accused her of making her choices in ignorance. She accused me of hating Christians. She finally said she'd pray for me, but I'd probably go to hell anyway. I told her I'd be happy to if she was an example of who'd be in heaven. :rolleyes:

I got in a huge arguement in the copy store with some clueless twit. I was copying store making copies of some Bush info just before the election. She asked if I was voting for Bush. I told her I'd sooner vote for Satan.
Her: Oh goodness, I hope not.
Me: No, I'm serious.
Her: But he's a good man and a good Christian!
Me: How do you know he's a good Christian?
Her: I know him.
Me: Personally?
Her: Of course not. But everyone says so.
Me: Do you get info from anyone but Fox?
Her: No, I don't need to.
Me: Ever read anything from independent news sources?
Her: I don't need to.

It deteriorated from there. I accused her of making her choices in ignorance. She accused me of hating Christians. She finally said she'd pray for me, but I'd probably go to hell anyway. I told her I'd be happy to if she was an example of who'd be in heaven. :rolleyes:
Sounds like my neighbor. First, Clinton was the anti-Christ, then Gore, and then Kerry (until he lost the election).

Why is it the Democrats are always the anti-Christs?!

Hopefully. But, don't get your hopes up... A lot of Bush voters were (and still are) very clueless people.

Maybe if the "other side" were able to recognize that not everyone feels the same way they do and there are some honest differences of opinions on some matters and it is best not to call your opponent names, dismiss them as stupid and refuse to recognize their legitimate concerns...

And I am not saying that there aren't people like this on both sides of the spectrum, I am just saying that these attitudes of calling someone a name and dismissing them should end on BOTH sides and we should perhaps learn what it is about our differences that we may be able to compromise on.

Neither side should expect to get everything they want and besides; that type of attitude is not conducive to Political compromise.

We would do much better, as a whole, if the first thing we did as Individuals is recognize "everyone else's" Right's first and foremost. Then, in return, they may begin doing the same for you.

Regards,
Gaar

I never could puzzle why people are blissfully ignorant about Bush and his incompetence or willful mismanagement because "He's a Good Christian."

Tomas de Torquemada was a Good Christian. In fact he presided over the Spanish Inquisition just to show how good of a Christian he was.

David Koresh was a Good Christian too. He even thought he was Jesus Christ and tried to start a harem in preparation for the Second Coming.

Adolf Hitler was a Good Christian too. Or at least that's what he claimed to be.

Anyways...

I don't care who gets elected 2008 Republican, Democrat or Other, as long as he or she is not a Bushevik drone. I can go for John McCain or any other Republican who is not a blatant corporate whore like Il Duh-ce clearly is.

If Terry Schiavo doesn't bring him down, Valerie Plame Wilson might.

I got in a huge arguement in the copy store with some clueless twit. I was copying store making copies of some Bush info just before the election. She asked if I was voting for Bush. I told her I'd sooner vote for Satan.
Her: Oh goodness, I hope not.
Me: No, I'm serious.
Her: But he's a good man and a good Christian!
Me: How do you know he's a good Christian?
Her: I know him.
Me: Personally?
Her: Of course not. But everyone says so.
Me: Do you get info from anyone but Fox?
Her: No, I don't need to.
Me: Ever read anything from independent news sources?
Her: I don't need to.

It deteriorated from there. I accused her of making her choices in ignorance. She accused me of hating Christians. She finally said she'd pray for me, but I'd probably go to hell anyway. I told her I'd be happy to if she was an example of who'd be in heaven. :rolleyes:

So you don't believe you denigrated her at all by equating her choice to Satan?

And so you are proud that you were able to throw insults at someone who was only voicing her opinion, as you were?

Before the Election, I would listen to John Hannity as he would ask Kerry Voters about their Candidate... You couldn't begin to imagine the amount of laughter one could get from listening to some of their answers.

It was hilarious! Does that prove all Kerry Voters are uneducated idiots? I think not, or at least I pray that it isn't true. I believe there are intelligent people on both sides of the spectrum. They just have different priorities in their lives that drive their concerns, neither is "right or wrong" just different.

So why do Liberals believe that telling their "stories" about some "Bush Voter" is some type of "stereotype" of the typical Bush Voter?

Regards,
Gaar

So you don't believe you denigrated her at all by equating her choice to Satan?

And so you are proud that you were able to throw insults at someone who was only voicing her opinion, as you were?

Regards,
Gaar
I didn't equate her choice with Satan, I said I'd rather vote for Satan. I've heard conservatives who at least think about why they voted as they did. I may disagree with them, but at least they thought about it. This woman never tried to get any info and simply relied on a single source I consider very biased. She made her decision merely on what she thought about his religious beliefs. I believe a good Christian is someone who cares about children and the poor. She said I was going to hell, so I told her I hoped so if she would be in Heaven.
I'm not sure why you see me as unreasonable.

I didn't equate her choice with Satan, I said I'd rather vote for Satan. I've heard conservatives who at least think about why they voted as they did. I may disagree with them, but at least they thought about it. This woman never tried to get any info and simply relied on a single source I consider very biased. She made her decision merely on what she thought about his religious beliefs. I believe a good Christian is someone who cares about children and the poor. She said I was going to hell, so I told her I hoped so if she would be in Heaven.
I'm not sure why you see me as unreasonable.

Yes, you're right... You said her choice was "worse" than Satan, my apologies...

And I suppose you expected to learn about everything she has considered about her choice by asking about what television station she views?

Did you ask if she read a paper or Weekly News Magazine at all? Listen to the Radio? Have discussions with friends or family?

You asked if her choice was based solely on Religion, in this very short discussion?

I say you were unreasonable because you baited her by suggesting her choice was "worse" than Satan. I'm sorry you don't see that as an unreasonable suggestion to someone who believes he should be President, but I do...

Regards,
Gaar

Maybe if he screws up enough people won't keep electing right-wing corporate whores.

As opposed to left wing corporate whores?

As opposed to left wing corporate whores?
Actually it's more like the difference between a girl being easy and one who asks for the money up front. Except in the case the one asking for the money up front is denying she's a whore and the easy one is denying she's easy.

He's in in his 2nd Term. He can now ignore the polls regarding whether people approve of him or not. I hope he realizes this and does what he feels to be right and damn the polls.

He's in in his 2nd Term. He can now ignore the polls regarding whether people approve of him or not. I hope he realizes this and does what he feels to be right and damn the polls.

Oh good. Now he can open all public land to oil, coal and timber companies. He can cut the rest of the poor off medicaid, Section 8 and food stamps. He can cut more programs like headstart, heating for low income, school lunches and Americorp. :rolleyes:

Indeed. Both Bush and kerry voters must have been woefully ignorant if they are people of good will. Had they known more about their choices and the alternatives, perhaps they would have not voted for either of these screw heads.

Indeed. Both Bush and kerry voters must have been woefully ignorant if they are people of good will. Had they known more about their choices and the alternatives, perhaps they would have not voted for either of these screw heads.
Was why I didn't vote, neither candidate was worth my vote, and I consider it an insult to call it a free election when all serious candidates involved are hand selected by the rich and powerful. In America's system, money and popularity have much more to do with who gets elected than integrity and competency does, and the people who continue to go out and perpetuate this farce by voting for these people deserve the system they have created even if the candidate(s) they voted for didn't win, because by voting, by default you are declaring that you are willing to accept the results of the election. It's just a shame said system is then forced upon the people who want nothing to do with it and that their only chance of getting things changed is by voting for people who have no real interest in changing something that they personally benefit from.

I think I like Bush. Ignore the fact that he's a raving lunatic, ignore the fact he's killed hundreds of innocent Iraqi civillians, ignore the fact that he's a far-right evangelical Christian, and ignore the fact he's pushing mankind to the edge of oblivion. Just think. After his stint is up, I doubt a Republican will ever be able to get re-elected within the next twenty years.

Oh good. Now he can open all public land to oil, coal and timber companies. He can cut the rest of the poor off medicaid, Section 8 and food stamps. He can cut more programs like headstart, heating for low income, school lunches and Americorp. :rolleyes:

Yet more hypocrisy from Il Duhce. Looking at his personal history, George W. Bush is the biggest welfare recepient in the world. Everything from his Vietnam Draft Dodging, Failed Businesses and even the White House were all handed out to him.

Just think. After his stint is up, I doubt a Republican will ever be able to get re-elected within the next twenty years.

I'll take that bet!

If Liberals take the same approach they did last time, we are likely to see the same result.

Calling your opponent names and being a Hypocrite in your decisions doesn't tend to warm one to the U.S. Electorate.

People who tend to tell you they should be in charge because of how smart they are versus how dumb you are don't usually sit well, even with those who are on your side.

U.S. citizens usually like to see a Leader with the ability to compromise, not act like you deserve to Rule because you are so much more intelligent than the people who Vote for the opposition.

People don't generally accept peoples word for such things...

They usually require empirical evidence of such abilities. And calling your opponent a "Chimp" doesn't usually pass as such evidence.

Besides, what does it say about someone's intelligence when they aren't even able to outdo someone they claim to be an idiot?

Simply amazing I tell you.

And they are setting themselves up to do it all again!

Look at all the practice they are getting calling their opponents stupid...

Regards,
Gaar

Well thats one reason why I think Britain has a better political system. We vote for the 'party' and not the 'leader'.

Well thats one reason why I think Britain has a better political system. We vote for the 'party' and not the 'leader'.

Actually, that sounds pretty scary...

Vote for either Party and you get what they give you?

Is that really how it works in the UK? I am going to have to admit that I am totally ignorant of your Election System for your Prime Minister (that is what you call your Leader, isn't it?) or any of your Elected Officials for that matter.

It just sounds scary to elect EITHER of our Parties here in the U.S. and we get whet they give us. Sounds kinda weird, but there is likely much more to it than that.

Regards,
Gaar

Bush is now more unpopular than he's ever been,
Bit late now, he already F-ed over your country.

As far as I'm concerned, his first term should've been his last.
He should never have had a first term.

Oh good. Now he can open all public land to oil, coal and timber companies. He can cut the rest of the poor off medicaid, Section 8 and food stamps. He can cut more programs like headstart, heating for low income, school lunches and Americorp. :rolleyes:


You do realize that all those budgets have actually increased since the glorious Clinton year’s right? Oh yeah I forgot, if they do not go up a 3% percentage every year, instead of 2% it is called a cut. :rolleyes:

Yet more hypocrisy from Il Duhce. Looking at his personal history, George W. Bush is the biggest welfare recepient in the world. Everything from his Vietnam Draft Dodging, Failed Businesses and even the White House were all handed out to him.

So what was Clinton? One can not dodge a draft and yet serve in the National Guard. In fact you can actually join the Guard as opposed to the active military and still be considered military. Unlike Clinton who actually did dodge the war and fled to Canada, Yep good role model for modern Liberals.

I think I like Bush. Ignore the fact that he's a raving lunatic, ignore the fact he's killed hundreds of innocent Iraqi civillians, ignore the fact that he's a far-right evangelical Christian, and ignore the fact he's pushing mankind to the edge of oblivion. Just think. After his stint is up, I doubt a Republican will ever be able to get re-elected within the next twenty years.

Hmm I wasn't aware that Bush went to Iraq and carried a gun, care to share that source? Since when has being a Christian been a prelude to being a lunatic? We are on the verge of nuclear war? With whom and what source are you getting this info from? I will also take your bet because I do not believe the Democrats have a clue as to why the truly lost the last two elections. It has nothing to do with "Moral Values" btw.

In my time here I have come to the realization that most liberals are as brain dead as those they try to vilify as being stupid.

Blair's administration has shown itself to be fairly hypocritical too, though. Just take a look at several recent articles.

MI6 told Parliament about America's 'fixed' case for the war
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1533385,00.html

Politicians take a stand against Blair
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1442950,00.htm

Blair stretched the legal rules for the war
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/21/nirq21.xml&sShe

British Attorney General originally wrote, privately, that the war was illegal, Publicly, he claimed it was legal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4296887.stm

Blair's old friend, the ex-director of the BBC, claims Blair exaggerated the claims of Iraq having WMDs.
http://www.theiraqmonitor.org/article/view/28611.html

They released the British Foreign Office deputy legal adviser's resignation letter, who quit because she believed the Iraqi war was unethical and illegal.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1444996,00.html?gusrc=rss

Actually, that sounds pretty scary...

Vote for either Party and you get what they give you?

Is that really how it works in the UK? I am going to have to admit that I am totally ignorant of your Election System for your Prime Minister (that is what you call your Leader, isn't it?) or any of your Elected Officials for that matter.

It just sounds scary to elect EITHER of our Parties here in the U.S. and we get whet they give us. Sounds kinda weird, but there is likely much more to it than that.

Regards,
Gaar
It's easy, you choose the Party with the best polocys-in my case the Lib Dems. They set these polocys down in a manifesto.

Conservatives, take a look at the edit I just put into the first post of this thread.

Bush's popularity is certainly low, but this is typical for second term presidents. The public realizes how sick they are of one leadership style, and jumps ship. However, he doesn't face a problem that most second term presidents do: he isn't a lame duck yet. He probably will become one after the midterm elections, but he isn't for now. That's because there is no way Dick Cheney, his vice president, will run in 2008.

He's in his last term anyway so unless you're hoping it somehow hurts Frist or Rice in 2008, it doesn't really matter. He fucked himself by interviening in the Schiavo case.

I hope he goes down for the count this time.
Too bad everyone is just realizing this now, instead ob last October and November when it really mattered. The only reason peopleare seeing this administration for what it is now instead of last fall is because the Rove spin-machine is no longer working at full capacity to get this slimeball elected.

Bush was silent on the school shootings at Red Lake (although yesterday, he spoke privately to the chairman of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa, for five minutes).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64317-2005Mar24.html


Makes me wonder if the US is going to break yet another promise to the American Indians. I do not trust US involvement in Indian affairs.

Actually, that sounds pretty scary...

Vote for either Party and you get what they give you?

Is that really how it works in the UK? I am going to have to admit that I am totally ignorant of your Election System for your Prime Minister (that is what you call your Leader, isn't it?) or any of your Elected Officials for that matter.

It just sounds scary to elect EITHER of our Parties here in the U.S. and we get whet they give us. Sounds kinda weird, but there is likely much more to it than that.

Regards,
GaarYou vote purely Republican, right?

If so, you're doing the same thing, only in our system the candidates are based purely on money and popularity, whereas in Britain's system, the party can choose intelligent, thoughtful people who are actually qualified to be involved in the business of governing.

He's in his last term anyway so unless you're hoping it somehow hurts Frist or Rice in 2008, it doesn't really matter. He fucked himself by interviening in the Schiavo case.His Social Security initiative has damaged Frist. The majority leader can't seem to rally the Republicans to support the President's initiative, and I think this has hurt his chances in 2008 with the Republican establishment. Increased Rice's chances, though, I should think.

You vote purely Republican, right?

No, why would you think that?

If so, you're doing the same thing, only in our system the candidates are based purely on money and popularity, whereas in Britain's system, the party can choose intelligent, thoughtful people who are actually qualified to be involved in the business of governing.

His Social Security initiative has damaged Frist. The majority leader can't seem to rally the Republicans to support the President's initiative, and I think this has hurt his chances in 2008 with the Republican establishment. Increased Rice's chances, though, I should think.

I vote for the person who best represents the Issues I am concerned about. I have to admit that I have only Voted for a hand full of Democrats over the Years but I have also Voted for many Libertarians as well.

But yes, to answer your question more succinctly I generally Vote for a Republican, but that is only because they best represent the Issues I want addressed.

I'm not saying the UK system is bad or anything, just not something I would feel comfortable with personally is all.

Regards,
Gaar

He's in his last term anyway so unless you're hoping it somehow hurts Frist or Rice in 2008, it doesn't really matter. He fucked himself by interviening in the Schiavo case.
That's temporary. In a few months, everyone will forget that Terri Schaivo even existed.

I didn't equate her choice with Satan, I said I'd rather vote for Satan.
And you expect anyone to take you seriously? If Satan exists, he is the essence of evil and corruption, it isn't possible to be worse than that. There's a point where hyperbole comes off as idiocy.

And you expect anyone to take you seriously? If Satan exists, he is the essence of evil and corruption, it isn't possible to be worse than that. There's a point where hyperbole comes off as idiocy.

No, he is the essence of pride and individuality. Sure that's a sin according to Christianity, and the one that's most likely to keep you away from God, because being attatched to your individuality means that you won't be able to surrender it to God on judgement day.

However, individualism is the very essence of being an American. That's why the patriotic conservative Christians are all on the bandwagon to destroy social security. Social Security is the best example that this country has of people contributing to each others welfare. Sure it's very Christian, but it's totally unindividualist.

So if you're a conservative, you know your next ticket. "Cheney-Satan 08"

I'll take that bet!

If Liberals take the same approach they did last time, we are likely to see the same result.

Don't you mean the opposite result?

Calling your opponent names and being a Hypocrite in your decisions doesn't tend to warm one to the U.S. Electorate.

People who tend to tell you they should be in charge because of how smart they are versus how dumb you are don't usually sit well, even with those who are on your side.

U.S. citizens usually like to see a Leader with the ability to compromise, not act like you deserve to Rule because you are so much more intelligent than the people who Vote for the opposition.

Exactly, Bush can't win than right? But he did so either you are not listening to yourself or somethign is up.
Bush's team called Kerry names like traitor, lying, flip-flopper, etc.
I'd choose a smart guy over a dumb one to lead me anyday. most p[eople would if given those choices(not names of people but just those)

Bush doesn't compromise...he acts like he deserves to rule (god chose him he said).
Wow, looking back you must not like Bush, he shows every bad quality you mentioned.
Plus Bush is a Liberal, look at the Terry Shiavio case, pure Liberalism.
Btw, Kerry was not a Liberal but a democrat. Kerry wouldn't push govt into your life like Bush did.

Plus Satan believes strongly in Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. He is not a aethist because Aethist don't believe in god.
Satan is a charismatic man so he shouldn't have too hard a time winning a election.

As far as I'm concerned, his first term should've been his last.

Surely you mean, he should never have been in office at all? :rolleyes:

And then we get another "Battle Royale" for the White House.

I can only hope the Liberals do everything just like last time!

Don't you mean Democrats? We're talking about the USA here.

It deteriorated from there. I accused her of making her choices in ignorance. She accused me of hating Christians. She finally said she'd pray for me, but I'd probably go to hell anyway. I told her I'd be happy to if she was an example of who'd be in heaven.
Good comeback!

As opposed to left wing corporate whores?
Isn't that an oxymoron? Care to point out a few left-wing corporate whores?

So what was Clinton? One can not dodge a draft and yet serve in the National Guard. In fact you can actually join the Guard as opposed to the active military and still be considered military. Unlike Clinton who actually did dodge the war and fled to Canada, Yep good role model for modern Liberals.

Why do you assume that everyone who doesn't like Bush likes Clinton? Both presidents were very similar in their policies.

Don't you mean Democrats? We're talking about the USA here.

No, I mean Liberals...

I believe there is such a thing as a Conservative Democrat, as well as a "Middle of the Road" Democrat.

I'm pretty sure that not all Democrats believe themselves to be Liberals, but I may be wrong.

Regards,
Gaar

Don't you mean the opposite result?

No, I said what I meant. Are you going to be another that tells me what I said so you can argue with it?

Exactly, Bush can't win than right? But he did so either you are not listening to yourself or somethign is up.
Bush's team called Kerry names like traitor, lying, flip-flopper, etc.
I'd choose a smart guy over a dumb one to lead me anyday.

What? Let's see here...

Kerry put's his Viet Nam Record on the table at the Democratic Convention, using a picture of his "Band of Brothers" who soon thereafter ask Kerry to stop using them as support of his Candidacy and when they want to tell their side of the story Kerry's camp basically tries to deny them their First Amendment Right's while allowing what was happening to the President from his camp?

At least when the President said ANYTHING on the matter he condemned both sides for their actions and didn't attempt to chastize on over the other.

And do you really want to get into this "intelligence" debate, yet again, in these Forums? It really is getting quite ridiculous having to show that Bush is smarter than at least 18 if not 19 out of ever 20 people here in the U.S.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

Regards,
Gaar

And then we get another "Battle Royale" for the White House.


Seems like a good idea to me.

Give all the candidates (random) weapons, put explosives round their necks, put them on a deserted island and let them fight it out. Last man standing wins.

And you expect anyone to take you seriously? If Satan exists, he is the essence of evil and corruption, it isn't possible to be worse than that. There's a point where hyperbole comes off as idiocy.

Surely the it isn't a question of Satan being evil incarnate, but if he is a good leader, administrator, fiscally responsible, smart etc..

Anyway, when it comes to being evil, Cthulhu pwns Satan. I mean, why choose the lesser of two evils?

No, he is the essence of pride and individuality. Sure that's a sin according to Christianity, and the one that's most likely to keep you away from God, because being attatched to your individuality means that you won't be able to surrender it to God on judgement day.

However, individualism is the very essence of being an American. That's why the patriotic conservative Christians are all on the bandwagon to destroy social security. Social Security is the best example that this country has of people contributing to each others welfare. Sure it's very Christian, but it's totally unindividualist.

So if you're a conservative, you know your next ticket. "Cheney-Satan 08"
That was his first of many sins. The whole war in Heaven, where 1/3 of the angels fell? His dedication to the destruction of God's chosen project, for no gain other than satisfying his hate? Please, it's pathetic to see you go the route of defending Satan, who by defintion is evil.

Social Security is the best example that this country has of people contributing to each others welfare. Sure it's very Christian, but it's totally unindividualist.

Actually, I believe the "best example" of how U.S. citizens contribute to each others welfare is in the "giving" people do on their own to Charities across this Great Nation. Social Security is something that is "forced" upon us as a whole, and is therefore a fairly poor example of how we "help" each other.

We U.S. citizens give more of our time and money, to help those less fortunate than ourselves, than any other Nation on Earth. How much better do you think we could do if we didn't give a good portion of our money to the Government and instead took the responsibility of our less fortunate citizens into our own hands?

I'm fairly sure that we could do privately much more with the same money as we get from our Government, but that is just my opinion.

Shall I use an analogy for you? Or are those still "lost" on you?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=404171

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, I believe the "best example" of how U.S. citizens contribute to each others welfare is in the "giving" people do on their own to Charities across this Great Nation. Social Security is something that is "forced" upon us as a whole, and is therefore a fairly poor example of how we "help" each other.
Why is it then that of 17 OECD countries, the US has the highest poverty rate?

We U.S. citizens give more of our time and money, to help those less fortunate than ourselves, than any other Nation on Earth.
This is news to me. Can you clarify your comment?

Shouldn't this thread have been started by Skape. . .I forget the rest of the spelling. I thought unBush stuff was his/her domain.

We U.S. citizens give more of our time and money, to help those less fortunate than ourselves, than any other Nation on Earth. How much better do you think we could do if we didn't give a good portion of our money to the Government and instead took the responsibility of our less fortunate citizens into our own hands?

I'm fairly sure that we could do privately much more with the same money as we get from our Government, but that is just my opinion.
Got a source for that claim about Americans?

I agree that charity is more effective and efficient than social welfare is at caring for the poor. However, I'm not sure if people are selfless enough to give sufficient amounts of their money to charities.

No, I mean Liberals...

I believe there is such a thing as a Conservative Democrat, as well as a "Middle of the Road" Democrat.

I'm pretty sure that not all Democrats believe themselves to be Liberals, but I may be wrong.

Regards,
Gaar
There is no Liberal party in America. Liberal parties can be found in Canada, Australia and there are Liberal Democrats in Britain.

Back to America... I was not aware that conservative Democrats were running a different candidate to that of the liberal (note the small "l") Democrats in the 2004 election!

Shouldn't this thread have been started by Skape. . .I forget the rest of the spelling. I thought unBush stuff was his/her domain.
No, a Skapedroe version of this thread would be "Tyrant Bush Unleashes Crocodile Pig-Dog Cops to Kill Liberals When His Poll Ratings Go Down."

No, a Skapedroe version of this thread would be "Tyrant Bush Unleashes Crocodile Pig-Dog Cops to Kill Liberals When His Poll Ratings Go Down."

Skapedore! That's it!! And yes, you're completely right, my mistake.

:( will there ever bee speration of church and state ever again? will college coast keep going up? will school keep getting conservetive sex ed lessones? will this ever end?!?!?!?! PLEASE BUDDHA, ALLHA, GOD, CHANGO, SOMEBODY MAKE IT BETTER!!!!!

Isn't that an oxymoron? Care to point out a few left-wing corporate whores?

Certainly, here you go.

Akaka, Daniel - (D - HI) Class I
141 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6361
E-mail: senator@akaka.senate.gov
Baucus, Max - (D - MT) Class II
511 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2651
Web Form: baucus.senate.gov/emailmax.html
Bayh, Evan - (D - IN) Class III
463 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/WebMail1.htm
Biden, Joseph - (D - DE) Class II
201 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5042
E-mail: senator@biden.senate.gov
Bingaman, Jeff - (D - NM) Class I
703 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5521
E-mail: senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov
Boxer, Barbara - (D - CA) Class III
112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3553
Web Form: boxer.senate.gov/contact
Byrd, Robert - (D - WV) Class I
311 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3954
Web Form: byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html
Cantwell, Maria - (D - WA) Class I
717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3441
Web Form: cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html
Carper, Thomas - (D - DE) Class I
513 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2441
Web Form: carper.senate.gov/email-form.html
Clinton, Hillary - (D - NY) Class I
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4451
Web Form: clinton.senate.gov/email_form.html
Conrad, Kent - (D - ND) Class I
530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2043
Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/webform.html
Corzine, Jon - (D - NJ) Class I
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
Web Form: corzine.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Dayton, Mark - (D - MN) Class I
123 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3244
Web Form: dayton.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Dodd, Christopher - (D - CT) Class III
448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2823
Web Form: dodd.senate.gov/webmail/
Dorgan, Byron - (D - ND) Class III
322 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2551
E-mail: senator@dorgan.senate.gov
Durbin, Richard - (D - IL) Class II
332 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2152
Web Form: durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.htm
Feingold, Russell - (D - WI) Class III
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5323
E-mail: russell_feingold@feingold.senate.gov
Feinstein, Dianne - (D - CA) Class I
331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
Web Form: feinstein.senate.gov/email.html
Harkin, Tom - (D - IA) Class II
731 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3254
Web Form: harkin.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Inouye, Daniel - (D - HI) Class III
722 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3934
Web Form: inouye.senate.gov/webform.html
Johnson, Tim - (D - SD) Class II
136 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5842
Web Form: johnson.senate.gov/emailform.cfm
Kennedy, Edward - (D - MA) Class I
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543
Web Form: kennedy.senate.gov/contact.html
Kerry, John - (D - MA) Class II
304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2742
Web Form: kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/contact/email.html
Kohl, Herb - (D - WI) Class I
330 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5653
Web Form: kohl.senate.gov/gen_contact.html
Landrieu, Mary - (D - LA) Class II
724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5824
Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Lautenberg, Frank - (D - NJ) Class II
324 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3224
Web Form: lautenberg.senate.gov/webform.html
Leahy, Patrick - (D - VT) Class III
433 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4242
E-mail: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Levin, Carl - (D - MI) Class II
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6221
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Lieberman, Joseph - (D - CT) Class I
706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4041
Web Form: lieberman.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm?regarding=issue
Lincoln, Blanche - (D - AR) Class III
355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4843
Web Form: lincoln.senate.gov/webform.html
Mikulski, Barbara - (D - MD) Class III
503 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4654
Web Form: mikulski.senate.gov/mailform.html
Murray, Patty - (D - WA) Class III
173 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2621
Web Form: murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm
Nelson, Bill - (D - FL) Class I
716 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5274
Web Form: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm#email
Nelson, Ben - (D - NE) Class I
720 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6551
Web Form: bennelson.senate.gov/email.html
Obama, Barack - (D - IL) Class III
713 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2854
Web Form: obama.senate.gov/contact/
Pryor, Mark - (D - AR) Class II
257 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2353
Web Form: pryor.senate.gov/contact/
Reed, Jack - (D - RI) Class II
728 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4642
Web Form: reed.senate.gov/form-opinion.htm
Reid, Harry - (D - NV) Class III
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3542
Web Form: reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm
Rockefeller, John - (D - WV) Class II
531 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6472
E-mail: senator@rockefeller.senate.gov
Salazar, Ken - (D - CO) Class III
702 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5852
Web Form: salazar.senate.gov/contactus.cfm
Sarbanes, Paul - (D - MD) Class I
309 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4524
Web Form: sarbanes.senate.gov/pages/email.html
Schumer, Charles - (D - NY) Class III
313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6542
Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/webform.html
Stabenow, Debbie - (D - MI) Class I
133 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4822
Web Form: stabenow.senate.gov/email.htm
Wyden, Ron - (D - OR) Class III
230 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5244
Web Form: wyden.senate.gov/contact.html

I got in a huge arguement in the copy store with some clueless twit. I was copying store making copies of some Bush info just before the election. She asked if I was voting for Bush. I told her I'd sooner vote for Satan.
Her: Oh goodness, I hope not.
Me: No, I'm serious.
Her: But he's a good man and a good Christian!
Me: How do you know he's a good Christian?
Her: I know him.
Me: Personally?
Her: Of course not. But everyone says so.
Me: Do you get info from anyone but Fox?
Her: No, I don't need to.
Me: Ever read anything from independent news sources?
Her: I don't need to.

It deteriorated from there. I accused her of making her choices in ignorance. She accused me of hating Christians. She finally said she'd pray for me, but I'd probably go to hell anyway. I told her I'd be happy to if she was an example of who'd be in heaven. :rolleyes:


Now you see, I DO just hate Christians. Christians and Muslims. Okay, Christians Muslims, Jew and Buddhists. And Mormons.

You know, I think I hate everyone. Especially Bush. Bush and Kerry. Well Bush,Kerry, DeLay, and Condi Rice.

Got a source for that claim about Americans?

I agree that charity is more effective and efficient than social welfare is at caring for the poor. However, I'm not sure if people are selfless enough to give sufficient amounts of their money to charities.

America's Tsunami of Giving

by Larry Elder
Posted Jan 7, 2005

Last year, American government provided 35 percent of worldwide relief aid. In private contributions, American individuals, estates, foundations and corporations gave over $240 billion to charitable causes in 2003, according to Giving USA Foundation. Privately, Americans give at least $34 billion overseas.

Josette Shiner, former Empower America president, points out that more than 80 percent of Americans belong to a "voluntary association," and 75 percent of households report charitable contributions. Shiner wrote in 1999, "Americans look even better compared to other leading nations. Accons.

According to recent surveys, 73 percent of Americans made a charitable contribution in the previous 12 months, as compared to 44 percent of Germans, and 43 percent of French citizens. The average sum of donations over 12 months was $851 for Americans, $120 for Germans, and $96 for the French. In addition, 49 percent of Americans volunteered over the previous 12 months, as compared to 13 percent of Germans and 19 percent of the French."

Of the 184 subscriber nations of the World Bank -- which provides financial assistance and debt relief to developing countries for particular sectors or projects with low-interest loans, interest-free credit and grants -- contributions paid in by America make up over 17 percent. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) focuses on providing financing for general support of a country's balance of payments and international reserves. Again, of the IMF's 184 nations, the U.S. does the heavy lifting, providing 17.5 percent of contributions.

What about debt forgiveness? The United States forgave about $14 billion in foreign debt from the late '80s through 1995. Since 1994, the U.S. has worked with the Paris Club -- an informal forum of creditor countries -- to review, negotiate and adopt debt relief programs for poor countries, recently badgering France and Germany into agreeing to forgive 80 percent of the $39 billion owed by Iraq.

America twice assisted Europe in World Wars I and II. America took the lead in defeating the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and continues to provide troops and military assistance to European nations and Southeast Asia.

United Nations' Egeland brags about his native Norway, which, in giving, he says, "is No. 1 in the world." Norway gives 0.92 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) to foreign aid development, versus 0.14 percent in this country. " . . . We have . . . no country up to the 1 percent . . . line of foreign assistance in general," says Egeland, "and we have, I think, three . . . Scandinavians that have exceeded -- and Holland -- the 0.7 percent line of gross national income for assistance." Yes, Holland gave $12.2 billion in foreign aid in 2003, but that was following two years in which it received more aid than it gave.

Besides, these numbers overlook Americans' private contributions, which equal 2.2 percent of our GDP. Add the value of volunteer time contributed, and -- even when calculated at minimum wage -- that gives you another $100 billion.

Add in the amount of money spent to protect other (often wealthy) countries -- military spending is 3.3 percent of our GDP, versus Sweden's 1.7 percent, Denmark's 1.6 percent, Norway's 1.9 percent, and Holland's 1.6 percent -- and, as Ronald Reagan might have put it, not bad. Not bad at all.

As to the tragedy in southern Asia, consider other actions taken by the United States so far: providing aircraft carriers, transport planes, helicopters, military support, logistical support, ships carrying food supplies, reconnaissance planes and warships, sending disaster assistance teams, shuttling supplies and advance teams to Sumatra's northwest coast and sending cargo planes carrying Marines and water purification equipment to Sri Lanka.

_______________________________________
Two types of charity:
1. What your government gives.
2. What your people give through private philanthropy.

The US government provides a tremendous amount of aid money, but if you figure on a per capita basis, it might not appear to be as much as other nations whose governments give money.

Americans are more philanthropic than anyone else.

An upcoming study, to be published in full in spring 2005 by the San Francisco-based Institute for Jewish & Community Research, finds that the top 6% of annual American charitable contributions exceeds the combined efforts of all other nations to aid victims of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami.

The study, Mega-Gifts in American Philanthropy, Volume II: 2001, by Gary A. Tobin, Alexander C. Karp, and Aryeh K. Weinberg, shows that in 2001 American individuals, corporations, and foundations donated nearly $13 billion in mega-gifts (donations over $1 million) without the impetus of a major disaster, including the attacks of September 11. The total for all tsunami relief, both private and governmental, stands to date at approximately $10 billion.

According to the study, the wealthiest Americans annually donate to charitable causes at levels that other peoples and nations barely reach even in the face of a major crisis such as the tsunami.

"Americans are so generous that every year, a number of single donors give gifts that dwarf the aid offered by other countries to those affected by the tsunami," said Gary Tobin, one of the authors of the study. "Americans give at emergency levels every day. When the rest of the world has forgotten about this crisis, Americans will keep giving generously to this and thousands of other causes."

According to Giving USA, published by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, Americans donated approximately $241 billion in 2003. The next most generous nation, the United Kingdom, donated 7 billion pounds sterling, or approximately $70 billion when adjusted for population differences. France ($20 billion adjusted average 1995-2000) and Germany ($12.25 billion adjusted average 1995-2000) also lag far behind the United States in charitable donations.

Contrary to the tradition of governmental support, which is more pronounced in much of the rest of the developed world, the size and volume of American mega-gifts often creates trends that the American government then follows, according to the Institute's report. When the news of the tsunami reached American households, individuals, foundations, and corporations donated more than $300 million. The United States government then pledged $350 million.

The report also shows that mega-givers open up entirely new areas of philanthropy, encouraging social awareness and action for previously underrepresented needs. Bill and Melinda Gates donated over $350 million in funding for AIDS research in Africa; the American government followed suit with a multi-billion dollar aid package.

The study shows that Americans also demand accountability for their gifts, especially those sent abroad. According to the report, "financial scandals that have plagued global efforts, including the oil for food scandal of the United Nations and the bloated personal bank account of the likes of Yasser Arafat create great skepticism and caution among donors who want to know that the monies they give will actually go for the intended purposes when they donate internationally."

According to the report, the recent debate over American generosity points out "a fundamental difference between Americans and the rest of the world regarding the faith that Americans place in individual choice and the resulting moral vision as expressed through philanthropy."

These findings are based on research conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Jewish & Community Research, San Francisco, an independent, non-partisan think tank, which provides innovative research and pragmatic policy analyses to Jewish and other communities around the world. For more information, see "American Mega-Giving: A Comparison to Global Disaster Relief."

Why is it then that of 17 OECD countries, the US has the highest poverty rate?

Likely because the poor in the U.S. have a living standard better than the "average" European"...

Shall we get into the "facts" on that too?

This is news to me. Can you clarify your comment?

I believe your answer may be in the post above.

Let me know if you have any further questions...

Regards,
Gaar

http://www.jewishresearch.org/PDFs/exceptional_nation2.pdf

Two writers for England's Economist magazine just wrote a book about America's differences from the rest of the
world, and one important difference they note is the way Americans give. After noting that we give far larger
proportions of our income to charity, they write, "Crucially, Americans much prefer to give away their money
themselves, rather than let their government do it.... This tradition of philanthropy encouraged America to tackle its
social problems without building a European-style welfare state, and to embrace modernity without abandoning its
traditions of voluntarism, decentralization and experiment."

Similarly, American philanthropist Daniel Rose observed last year that the French "are bemused to learn that American
private charitable contributions this year will exceed $200 billion, equal to about 10 percent of the total federal budget;
that some 70 percent of U.S. households make charitable cash contributions; and that over half of all U.S. adults will
volunteer an estimated 20 billion hours in charitable activities." Nor, Rose adds, are the French alone in their
astonishment: "A recent German study reports that on a per capita basis, American citizens contribute to charity nearly
seven times as much as their German counterparts and that about six times as many Americans as Germans do
volunteer work."

Check the first post of this thread again. There's been another addition. ;)

Bush's popularity is certainly low, but this is typical for second term presidents.
Clinton's approval rating was soaring in his second term, until they caught him getting blowjobs from his intern.

No, I mean Liberals...

I believe there is such a thing as a Conservative Democrat, as well as a "Middle of the Road" Democrat.

I'm pretty sure that not all Democrats believe themselves to be Liberals, but I may be wrong.

Regards,
Gaar
And what about Evangelical Democrats (liberal economic policies, but somewhat conservative policies on religion)? There aren't many of them, but they're there.

Kerry put's his Viet Nam Record on the table at the Democratic Convention, using a picture of his "Band of Brothers" who soon thereafter ask Kerry to stop using them as support of his Candidacy and when they want to tell their side of the story Kerry's camp basically tries to deny them their First Amendment Right's while allowing what was happening to the President from his camp?
Using your military record for politics is no worse than using your religion. And some of his fellow officers supported him (I don't remember how many). Conservatives claimed they were bribed, and Liberals claimed those making up stories about him were bribed. In my opinion, three purple hearts for a 6 month tour is not realistic, but neither is shooting yourself for them. Either way, it's not provable, so just like Bush's drug-history or possible connection with terrorists, it's irrelevant.

At least when the President said ANYTHING on the matter he condemned both sides for their actions and didn't attempt to chastize on over the other.
That didn't stop Conservatives, like you, from repeatedly claiming his record was a farce. OK, let me get this straight--first, you criticize Kerry for being biased, claiming his war record was fake--but then you tout Bush for criticizing both parties? If Conservatives' had followed his example (especially upon Bush's instruction), I'd see the relevance here, but no. What he did was a political move. Seeming objective (over something which is irrelevant, but could've affected the election) is a way for him to gain more trust among swing-voters. It was not a noble act. It's politics.

And do you really want to get into this "intelligence" debate, yet again, in these Forums? It really is getting quite ridiculous having to show that Bush is smarter than at least 18 if not 19 out of ever 20 people here in the U.S.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm

There's several problems with that:
#1. "The two tests aren't perfectly comparable. But they provide no evidence that Kerry is smarter. If anything, Bush is smarter than Kerry." Kerry's test never revealed specific scores and this is important, because the test is an odd, weighted average, where even if he has a strong logical intelligence, his visual intelligence (seeing shapes) is poor, for whatever reason, then it comes out as average.

#2. The author's conversion to IQ is sketchy. For Kerry, he converts the score to SAT, and then to IQ. He assumes that the average intelligence of a person taking the Navy OQT is the same as the average person taking the SAT. And then, he assumes again that the average person taking the SAT is of average intelligence. Assumptions, assumptions!

#3. "Kerry's PDF file on JohnKerry.com is blurry, but it appears to read:"

Now that is just pathetic! :)

#4. Bush would have never made it into Yale, without his father, because his high school transcript was pathetic compared to his peers. (You think C average students get into Yale? Get real.) But Kerry made it into law school on his own merits. I'm not saying Kerry is smarter, but certainly, he hasn't had a large family coddling him. Even when Bush ran for governor of Texas, Bush's daddy hired his campaign manager for him.

http://www.hoosierreview.com/richer_files/richer01.html

Actually, I believe the "best example" of how U.S. citizens contribute to each others welfare is in the "giving" people do on their own to Charities across this Great Nation. Social Security is something that is "forced" upon us as a whole, and is therefore a fairly poor example of how we "help" each other.
A large, but unestimated amount of charities in the United States are businesses disguised as charities. My father used to work for a non-profit organization for Autism research. They were, if I remember correctly, the second largest group in the United States and recieved millions in contributions, each year. The President of the group recieved a six-figure salary, the employees in the office my father worked in recieved substantial pay, far beyond what they'd have gotten anywhere else. (My father's aware of this, because they recieved more contributions than usual, one year, and they gave all of their employees a huge raise.) From my father's experience working there, they used little or no money on actual Autisim Research.

This should not be surprising to you. Look at the number of corrupted 'Christians' on television, taking money. There was a documentary on Benny Hinn. The two most striking things were, first, a family that had given all they owned to him, in order to save their child with leukemia. The child died, of course. Second, Benny had "faith-healing" in Africa, where he claimed to have healed many people--but it was a local tragedy. The stands were so crowded, that over a dozen people had been trampled to death.

Government programs have the benefit of being able to have regulation. Charities are not obligated to tell you how much they're using or what they're using it on, specifically. Conservatives tend to have a "holier than thou" atttitude, yet they feel civil freedoms should be restricted for morality, yet financial freedoms should not. They feel that all charity should be optional and voluntary. To a certain extent, that's true. We're not Communists, after all. However, in order to give people the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness they're guaranteed, we have to somewhat share the burden. Yes, a minimum wage raises inflation and unemployment, but if you abolish it, poverty rates will rise and along with that, crime and death. Certainly, it would save the major companies billions, but I believe human life is worth more than money. The same idea applies to charities. Just because you want to allow people greater freedom to be selfish is no reason to destroy social programs or what little foreign aid we have.

"Americans are so generous that every year, a number of single donors give gifts that dwarf the aid offered by other countries to those affected by the tsunami," said Gary Tobin, one of the authors of the study. "Americans give at emergency levels every day. When the rest of the world has forgotten about this crisis, Americans will keep giving generously to this and thousands of other causes."

Matthew 6:1-4 "Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

Conservatives often bring up the fact that we give the greatest total, but we also give the least percentage. About 1% of our GDP, the least of any rich nation in the world.

http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/1997/09/17/opin/opin.1.html
http://www.globalaidsalliance.org/cd_azeditorial.cfm
http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol2/v2n23eaf_body.html

And the vast majority of that foreign aid goes to Israel. Somehow, Conservatives have deluded us to believe that foreign aid to Africa makes them dependent on us, but foreign aid to Israel, does not.

These findings are based on research conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Jewish & Community Research, San Francisco, an independent, non-partisan think tank, which provides innovative research and pragmatic policy analyses to Jewish and other communities around the world.
Hahahaha. Now I see why it's such nonsense. Jewish and non-partisan? My ass. In Hebrew, there's a saying, "Where there are two Jews, there are three opinions." They laud the United States' for its effort on foreign aid, because they recieve more than any other country in the world. Simple as that. But truly, even as Christian Sciences' website says, we give very little, less than 1%.

Using your military record for politics is no worse than using your religion. And some of his fellow officers supported him (I don't remember how many). Conservatives claimed they were bribed, and Liberals claimed those making up stories about him were bribed. In my opinion, three purple hearts for a 6 month tour is not realistic, but neither is shooting yourself for them. Either way, it's not provable, so just like Bush's drug-history or possible connection with terrorists, it's irrelevant.

I believe there were like 6 that were for Kerry and some 265 that were against.

That didn't stop Conservatives, like you, from repeatedly claiming his record was a farce. OK, let me get this straight--first, you criticize Kerry for being biased, claiming his war record was fake--but then you tout Bush for criticizing both parties? If Conservatives' had followed his example (especially upon Bush's instruction), I'd see the relevance here, but no. What he did was a political move. Seeming objective (over something which is irrelevant, but could've affected the election) is a way for him to gain more trust among swing-voters. It was not a noble act. It's politics.

At least Bush wasn't a Hypocrite on this matter, like Kerry was.

Conservatives often bring up the fact that we give the greatest total, but we also give the least percentage. About 1% of our GDP, the least of any rich nation in the world.

That's what the Government does, the U.S. citizens, privately, donate about 2.2% of GDP "far above" any other Nation, you might like to check those numbers.

Regards,
Gaar

And you expect anyone to take you seriously? If Satan exists, he is the essence of evil and corruption, it isn't possible to be worse than that. There's a point where hyperbole comes off as idiocy.Whoopee! An imaginary enemy instead of an imaginary friend. :rolleyes:

I believe there were like 6 that were for Kerry and some 265 that were against.
I was talking about his 'band of brothers' you mentioned. There were a handful of them, not hundreds. And I'd like to see statistics, substantiating this claim of all the military against him. I'd still assume his "fellow officers" would not be 300 people. Not that many people would have remembered him, until after he'd run for senate and\or President. That'd give people plenty of time for "creative" memories (the military is mostly Conservative, you see). Plus, his TV debate, attacking U.S. policies during Vietnam did not make him too popular, either. Tell me, do you think 300 people in your high school or college would be able to give accurate opinions of you, decades later, when you're in congress? No. If you disagree with that, I suggest you take several Psychology courses and learn why.

At least Bush wasn't a Hypocrite on this matter, like Kerry was.
There's proof of Bush's actions. not his intent. You've assumed that. The point of Kerry's showing he was active in the military, was to show that he's been in combat, so he knows what it's like for those guys. Regardless of whether you think he actually faced combat or not, the Mekong river was no picnic. There's a lot of wisdom you can only gain from experience, making the world on your own steam and facing life-threatening events, and that can't be gained from being coddled. The military record was a sign of his credibility, just as Bush's religion is a sign of his credibility to Conservatives.

That's what the Government does, the U.S. citizens, privately, donate about 2.2% of GDP "far above" any other Nation, you might like to check those numbers.
Foreign aid or charity to benefit Americans? I want specific sources I can validate. Because I am skeptical that the nations of the world have all researched the amount of privately-funded charity they have or that even America's research into it has been complete and fundamentally solid.

Perhaps this (http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/failedtransition/transition.pdf) is one of the main reasons that Bush's popularity is in decline?

U.S. military killed in Iraq: 1,516

Number of U.S. troops wounded in combat since the war began: 11,344

Monthly average before the June 28, 2004 “transition”: 449

Monthly casualty average (dead and wounded) since the “transition”: 748

Iraqi soldiers and insurgents killed since May 1, 2003: approximately 24,000

Iraqi civilians killed: Estimates range from 16,100 - 100,000

Number of civilian contractors killed: 213

Number of insurgents in Iraq:

November 2003 estimate: 5,000 fighters

December 2004 estimate: 40,000 fighters and 200,000 Iraqi sympathizers

What the Iraq war has created, according to the U.S. National Intelligence Council: “a training and recruitment ground (for terrorists), and an opportunity for terrorists to enhance their technical skills.”

Effect on al Qaeda of the Iraq War, according to International Institute for Strategic Studies: “Accelerated recruitment”

Percentage of Americans who believe the situation in Iraq was “worth going to war over”: 39%

Percentage of Americans who believe that the Iraq War has worsened the U.S. image in the world: 65%

Percentage of people polled in 21 countries around the world who believed Mr Bush’s re-election to the White House made the world more dangerous: 58%

Percentage of Iraqis expressing “no confidence” in U.S. civilian authorities or coalition forces: 80%

Fraction of the 148,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq who are Guard members or Reservists: 4 out of 10

Status of Army National Guard recruitment: down 30%

Average number of attacks by Iraqi resistance per week: 425

What General James Helmly, the Army Reserve’s commander, told the Pentagon in December 2004: his men were “degenerating into a broken force”

Percentage of reserve troops who earn lower salaries while on deployment: 30-40%

Percentage of U.S. police departments missing officers due to Iraq deployments: 44%

CanuckHeaven, those statistics are shocking, but that's a liberal group. I'd like to see their sources.

I do too!

What he isn't telling you is that the Sunnis are ready to call it quits and want to end the insurgency. This'll lead the Zarqawi group out to dry.

However, that isn't why his poll numbers are down. They are down probably due to the Terri Shiavo case.

It doesn't matter anyway, this is Bush's last term.

CanuckHeaven, those statistics are shocking, but that's a liberal group. I'd like to see their sources.
Well if you look, I am sure you can find some "conservative" statistics then we can just average the two? :eek:

Well if you look, I am sure you can find some "conservative" statistics then we can just average the two? :eek:

Just give us a link please.