Bush Television Ads

[coffman]

I was wondering what people think of George W. using images of 9/11 in television ads for his re-election. Considering in 2002 he said he would not use 9/11 for political gain, I believe it is a cheap shot and an insult to all of the families who lost loved ones during the attack.

[Firebrand]

Just another nail in his coffin. His chances of staying President....nil.

[Scrubking]

Not another GW bashing thread. :roll:

[magilacudy]

I hate Bush, but looking at the possible candidates for next election I don't think there could be any possible improvement.

[CheapyD]

Just another nail in his coffin. His chances of staying President....nil.

I hope you are right, but I have my doubts.

[E-Z-B]

That was disgusting using the images of the murder of 3,000 people to launch & promote a re-election campaign.

[Titans24]

Both sides are going to use 9/11 to their advantages. If you guys don't like Bush, then I suggest you don't vote for Kerry, considering he voted for every measure that Bush put through Congress -- tax cuts, Iraq war, patriot act, no child left behind. He also voted for NAFTA back in 1994. It wil be a long election year.

[JimmieMac]

Well, the line on betonsports.com has it like this:

Which candidate will win the U.S. Presidential Election in 2004?
George W. Bush -200
John Kerry +150

Who will win the next US Presidential election?
Republicans -200
Democrats +150


For the non-gamblers that give a shit I will explain how to read the lines after lunch.

[The-Bavis]

I think it was done as tastefully as possible, and it calls to mind the fact that he was a strong leader during the defining moment of his presidency. It should be the most important issue of this election. Has Bush handled the situation well? Will Kerry(or Nader, I guess) handle it as well or better? Yes, other issues are important, but before I care about getting a small check in the mail when I retire or getting cheap drugs, I want to feel as confident as possible that some Jihad @sshole ain't gonna be blowin' up our cities!

[E-Z-B]

If bush stays in office another four years, you won't have to worry about that small check in the mail when you retire. First, social security will be gone, second, the economy and the stock market will be in the crapper, and third, you won't be able to retire until you're 80 at this rate. Chances are, you'll be dead before then.

[Atreadon]

Nader may end up ruining it again for the democrats. I don't understand the people that will vote for him...they must be either too dense to realize or too idealistic to care that Nader can't win, and that his entering the race only makes it more likely that the lesser-of-two-evils is going to lose.

Bonesman vs. bonesman. Bad vs. worse. Is this what we've come to?

[MaxBiaggi3]

Is this what we've come to?

I'm afraid so, and remember that nearly half the country voted for the bonehead currently in office in the last election, and he's enjoyed a republican congress and mostly record-high approval ratings since then. You too can be a C student at a college your parents bought your way into and go on to become president. Or, you could be a steroid-using musclehead from Austria and go on to become a multi-million dollar action movie star and governor of California. Love the opportunity here!

[BABETOOTH]

I hope that Nader doesnt ruin it for the Dems as he did last time. He knows he cant win but he could get enough votes to make a difference. I hope people dont fall for that again. If you do not want the "Religious Right" running this country vote for Kerry. He is not my favorite but now a days you have to choose between the lesser of 2 evils.

[daphatty]

Bonesman vs. bonesman. Bad vs. worse. Is this what we've come to?

Are you just now realizing this? We got lucky with Clinton. Everyone voted for him because Bush Sr. was a washout. (Like father like son?) Our country prospered under Clinton despite the various scandals. Let's just hope that Kerry is as good as Clinton, or at the very least, half as bad as Bush Jr.

FYI: I voted for Bush Jr. and he let me (and this country) down so I can rip on him all I want.

[optimusprime]

That was disgusting using the images of the murder of 3,000 people to launch & promote a re-election campaign.

And how do you feel about Kerry using his Vietnam service as an issue? How many Americans died there? 50,000?

[ZForce915]

George W. Bush is the worst president we've ever had. I can't wait until a decade or so passes and then the world will realize that. I do not see any chance of re-election. Hell, he didn't really get elected the first time.

[The-Bavis]

If bush stays in office another four years, you won't have to worry about that small check in the mail when you retire. First, social security will be gone, second, the economy and the stock market will be in the crapper, and third, you won't be able to retire until you're 80 at this rate. Chances are, you'll be dead before then.

Oh, I'll be retiring long before 80. I consider social security to be non-existent and take care of myself without the government holding my hand, thank you very much.

The rest of your predictions are just kooky.

[E-Z-B]

That was disgusting using the images of the murder of 3,000 people to launch & promote a re-election campaign.

And how do you feel about Kerry using his Vietnam service as an issue? How many Americans died there? 50,000?

The difference is he's not showing people being slaughtered for his own political gain in his election bid.

[optimusprime]

George W. Bush is the worst president we've ever had.

That's a pretty bold statement.....there have been some pretty crappy presidents: Jimmy Carter (double-digit inflation, gasoline lines, Iran hostage crisis), Nixon (impeached-Watergate), Andrew Johnson (impeached, quasi-white supremacist), Clinton (impeached, worst moral/ethical example to hold office ever - somehow he gets a free pass as a result of the great economy he presided over, but that was basically all driven by Y2k capital spending and the .com boom).

Care to back it up?

[E-Z-B]

George W. Bush is the worst president we've ever had.

Care to back it up?

Love to!

GEORGE W. BUSH RESUME (2003)
The White House, USA

* ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
* I attacked and took over two countries.
* I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the Treasury.
* I shattered the record for biggest annual deficit in history.
* I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
* I set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
* I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
* I am the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
* In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
* After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.
* I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US history.
* In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
* I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.
* I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
* I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
* I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president since the advent of TV.
* I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other president in US history.
* I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
* I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
* I cut health care benefits for war veterans.
* I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
* I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
* I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.
* Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (The 'poorest' multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her).
* I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.
* I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.
* I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
* I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
* I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any other president in US history.
* I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
* I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.
* I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
* I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
* I withdrew from the World Court of Law.
* I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
* I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.
* I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
* The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
* I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
* I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
* I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
* I took the world's sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
* I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
* I am the first US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
* I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
* I set the all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations bidding for gov't contracts.
* I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history. In a little over two years I have created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided that the US has been since the civil war.
* I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.


* RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
* I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).
* I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during a time of war.
* I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
* All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my father¹s library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
* All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
* All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
* Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

* PERSONAL REFERENCES:
* For personal references, please speak to my dad or uncle James Baker (They can be reached in their offices at the Carlyle Group where they are helping to divide up the spoils of the US-Iraq war and plan for the next one.)

[optimusprime]

Anyone can cut and paste from an anti-Bush website. I wanted to see if you had a brain, Mr. Scarecrow.

[moiety]

No way is Bush the worst president.

Anyway, I don't want to vote for either Kerry or Bush. From what I've seen and heard, I just don't like Kerry that much or his stances on certain issues. I'm not gonna get specific, but I usually lean towards the Democratic party in regards to issues but I dunno, I don't really want to see either of them as president.

Maybe I'll just write my name in on that ballot... :wink:

[evilmax17]

Who's the idiot that compared Nam to 911? Instead of pointing out all the things wrong with this, I'll just do the most obvious one.

911 happened a few years ago, Nam 40 years ago. Do you see the difference? People are still actively grieving 911, it's not a piece of history just yet.

[E-Z-B]

Anyone can cut and paste from an anti-Bush website. I wanted to see if you had a brain, Mr. Scarecrow.

You asked for some evidence, and I gave it to you. You didn't ask for an opinion.

[Firebrand]

Anyone can cut and paste from an anti-Bush website. I wanted to see if you had a brain, Mr. Scarecrow.

Referring to genuine information is out of the question? Would it have been better if he had put his own spin on it? What am I missing here? If a person supports their argument, that's all that matters. Does it matter how they choose to do it?

[E-Z-B]

Oh, and it came from Snopes which investigates urban legends and the sorts: http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/resume.asp

Their verdict? "A mixed bag of entries of varying degrees of truthfulness, many of them quite complex and/or subjective in nature. We haven't had the time to properly delve into the multiplicity of claims contained in it yet.

[Firebrand]

The fact of the matter is he fell face first off a Segway and choked on a pretzel...and he stutters quite a bit.

[evilmax17]

I also love how republicans like to call Clinton a bad president. Republicans tend to judge him based on his moral character, which is the WRONG way to judge a president. I think it's because of the times we live in, because Kennedy didn't face any of that scrutiny. People who don't give Clinton any credit for the prosperous economy are just really ignorant. Over 8 years we had the best economy we've ever had, and you're telling me that it was just a coincidence? Then Bush comes in and after 4 years, our country is in horrible shape. Another coincidence right?

No, Bush wasn't the worst president we've ever had, but he's definately in the bottom 5 or 10. I think the worst president we've ever had would probably be Hoover.

[Lstorm34]

im still waiting for evidence of wmd in iraq. this fucker is killing young americans lives everyday in iraq for his political gain. remember what he said before the war it shouldnt take more than 6 months and were out.

[ryanbph]

E-Z-B are you drinking the clinton kool aid...you have so many loosely based idea's their it is crazy...gas prices were higher before/during 2000, at the time i was in maine and paying close to $2/gallon for regular..i pay less then that for premium now...you want to trust the un, then move to a country that supports them..the un recently said that they couldn't handle hati...if they can't handle hati, how the hell can they handle any other country..the recession started in clintons term, their has been documentation about how greenspan met with clinton, and clinton said not to touch it..and americains deserve to loose jobs, we produce shitty products that are overpriced...the deficit always goes up in a war..and we are fighting an international war on terror, but i guess you wouldn't want to pay for that...yeah ss is going to go down in 2024, but it was going down then when clinton was in office..so it should not be much of a surprise..how would you propose fixing it...ahh taxing us more..great idea
The UN is a useless body, much like the league of nations before ww2, we can't even get people in this country to decide how to do things, and you want to give our freedoms to the control of the un, what the hell are you thinking..they rendered them selves useless after warning iraq numerous times...you want to talk shit about enron, take a look at the donations they made to clinton and gore..they played both sides of the fence..don't be preaching shit about how bad the other side is, when your side of the fence is doing the same thing

[optimusprime]

Woah.....sorry this turned so ugly. I'm really getting ganged up on here (where are the rest of the sane people here?).

Anyhow, I'll answer a few points, and then let it rest.

1. ezb - As far as the cutting and pasting thing, I just hate it when people regurgitate other peoples arguments instead of constructing their own. Maybe there would be no difference, but it would seem like some thought went into it.

2. evilmax - Nobody compared 911 directly to Nam, so easy, tiger. My point was that using a tragedy to garner support is either bad or its not. Anything beyond that is splitting hairs. You think there aren't people today whose lives are affected (or haven't been ruined) by Vietnam? Again, I have no moral authority, because I didn't have a family member die in 911 (one college friend, though) and I wasn't in Nam. It just seems like criticizing Bush for this is more partisan politics.

3. ezb - If Snopes (good site, by the way...I use it a lot)
didn't verify your claims, then why point it out?

4. ezb - Why does Firebrand feel compelled to defend you?

Again....I'm not taking any of this too seriously....I was just looking for some friendly debate. I hope you take no offense.

[E-Z-B]

americains deserve to loose jobs, we produce shitty products that are overpriced...

:roll:

[moiety]

americains deserve to loose jobs, we produce shitty products that are overpriced...

:roll:

I'll second your :roll:, EZB .

[optimusprime]

[quote=ryanbph]americains deserve to loose jobs, we produce shitty products that are overpriced...


I think its more the fact that American workers get paid too much to produce said products. It makes it hard to stay competitive when your labor expense is 500% higher than your competition (who outsources jobs).

[ryanbph]

for economic policy set in place by a govt to take effect, it takes between 3-4 years, so clinton came into office as the economy was on its way up, bush's tax cuts from his first year should start effect this fall..also the president really doesn't do much..they are a figure head..they appoint judges, and during recess they get some extra powers, the presidency is a spot for a party to constantly be voicing their opinions, which we haven't had in a president since regan..bush is just as mediocre as clinton was, the democratic congress and republican congress are pathetic, and weak...blaming bush on the poor economics of the country, which to be honest with you really is doing very well right now..is like getting a job as a boss, and having the country go bankrupt 4 months later, is it your fault if you didn't even have a budget in place, for the companies failure, no it isn't...the wmd, the un, france, germany, president clinton, and every one in this world said he had them...how can you hold bush responsible for that, he had 12 years to hide them...

[E-Z-B]

[quote=ryanbph]americains deserve to loose jobs, we produce shitty products that are overpriced...


I think its more the fact that American workers get paid too much to produce said products. It makes it hard to stay competitive when your labor expense is 500% higher than your competition (who outsources jobs).

How can you agree with that? This is the reason WHY 2.5 million jobs have disappeared since 2001. The republican party needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Outsourcing jobs will help corporate executives buy that second 7 series beemer, not help a family of four forced to work at wal-mart because their job was outsourced.

[vshekar]

The worst president was Millard Filmore. I was so mad the whole time he was president. I was like, whatever happens in the next election, we need to get this guy out of office.

[MaxBiaggi3]

A few things I don't like about Bush:

1) Tax cuts for the wealthy. Someone please explain to me why rich people need a tax cut. It's not like their kids won't eat dinner tonight or go to a good school without one. I don't want Social Security to go down the toilet tomorrow so a bunch of fat cats can get a tax break today.

2) Lies. WMDs, chemical/biological weapons, al Qaida ties, imminent threat to the U.S., etc. This load of BS created a culture of fear to justify finishing what Bush Sr. didn't do in Iraq, and countless innocent Iraqi civilians and American soldiers continue to die as a result.

3) $500+ billion dollar deficit. A basic rule of accounting is that you don't spend more than you earn, and yet Bush somehow managed to go from a budget surplus in 2000 to today's record-high deficit in barely three years' time, a debt we and our children will have to pay for years to come.

This administration has acted in a completely reckless and arrogant manner far beyond anything I simply disagree with. The Bush White House and its policies are inherently evil and must be stopped.

[Lstorm34]

dont be suprised if bush is loosing in the election and out of nowhere he says we have caught osam bin laden. i have a feeling they have his ass but holding out till the time is right

[ryanbph]

1.)Why should the rich pay over 38% of their income to the federal govt to subsidize programs that have failed for 30 plus years..I personally believe in a 15% flat tax..russia put it in in 2000, and they had their gov't grow and the economic conditions have improved greatly

2.) yeah i guess the al queda terrorist that have been pick up in iraq, show no link..everone, including the dems in 1998, and in the fall b4 the war said we should go..

3.) we had a deficit when bush took office, clinton and the republicain house balanced the budget, and were paying down our deficit, but we weren't in a surplus..that was projected surplus, and you can't predict things like 9/11 that will damage the economy, when people are scared, they don't spend..that isn't something you can predict..

[Scrubking]

where are the rest of the sane people here?

They are all ignoring this stupid thread, :wink:

And all of the stupid anti-bush comments like the one below. :roll:

[hardwo0d]

Some more FACTS about GW Bush


Has not raised Minimum wage once (Clinton did this 3 times during his 8 years)

2. Taxation for the "rich" was at 70% when Reagan came into office. He slashed it to 35%. Clinton came into office and raised it to 39%. The FIRST thing, not second or third, that Bush did was to lower it back to 35%

3. He lied about his military service and created faux documents stating he did serve.

4. The National Debt clock in Times Square was turned back on after it had been off during the Clinton Administration. We are now losing MUCH more money than in the past.

5. Clinton became presiident through merit and hard work, not because his dad was a a U.S. Senator and Presidnet, which is also why he got into all those ivy leauge schools, Yale, etc.


6. Just hearing the guy talk, you know that he is an idiot

[BABETOOTH]

That was disgusting using the images of the murder of 3,000 people to launch & promote a re-election campaign.

And how do you feel about Kerry using his Vietnam service as an issue? How many Americans died there? 50,000?

Here is the difference, Kerry fought in the Vietnam War and survived. Bush during 9-11 flew around the country like a coward until it was safe to land. If he would have been inside that inferno trying to save lives then it would`ve been okay I guess.

[E-Z-B]

dont be suprised if bush is loosing in the election and out of nowhere he says we have caught osam bin laden. i have a feeling they have his ass but holding out till the time is right

You know, I've been thinking that since they caught Saddam. Did you notice that today, two days after Super-Tuesday, now that Kerry is the clear nominee, the Bush administration announces that they've set up surveillance to watch the afghan mountains 24/7 now. Why didn't we do this a year ago? Because it's an election year, of course!

[MaxBiaggi3]

1.)Why should the rich pay over 38% of their income to the federal govt

2.) everone, including the dems in 1998, and in the fall b4 the war said we should go..

3.) you can't predict things like 9/11 that will damage the economy, when people are scared, they don't spend..that isn't something you can predict..

1) To those who much is given, much is expected in return. It's in the bible, you selfish $#*%. Try reading it sometime.

2) Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich didn't vote for war.

3) 33% of the current budget deficit is a result of the Bush tax cut for the wealthy. If 10% of the U.S. population earns 90% of the wealth, then 90% of Bush's tax cut went to just 10% of the population. Don't even try to convince me that Cheney "earned" his $36 million per year as head of Halliburton a few years ago. That's just a load of garbage.

[Firebrand]

Has GW ever written a book...or anything else for that matter? Ghost writings do not count, obviously.

[Doylerulez]

Why can't people see the bright side of the elections, there is no Hillary Clinton anywhere near the ballot right now.

Also note during GW's presidency, the price of video games and systems have fallen. Coincidence?

[E-Z-B]

Why can't people see the bright side of the elections, there is no Hillary Clinton anywhere near the ballot right now.

Also note during GW's presidency, the price of video games and systems have fallen. Coincidence?

That's because people don't have jobs and can't pay $70 anymore.

[alongx]

http://maddox.xmission.com/limits_to_freedom.html

http://maddox.xmission.com/tictacs.html

More fun facts about president bush for your reading pleasure!

[optimusprime]

[quote=ryanbph]americains deserve to loose jobs, we produce shitty products that are overpriced...


I think its more the fact that American workers get paid too much to produce said products. It makes it hard to stay competitive when your labor expense is 500% higher than your competition (who outsources jobs).

How can you agree with that? This is the reason WHY 2.5 million jobs have disappeared since 2001. The republican party needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Outsourcing jobs will help corporate executives buy that second 7 series beemer, not help a family of four forced to work at wal-mart because their job was outsourced.

The times are changing. That's why you need to go to college these days. Sure, executives are getting rich, but they have stockholders to account for too. How can you justify paying a person $60,000+ per year (as some of our factory workers make) with full pension and benefits to insert tab A into slot B all day? My way may not seem fair, but your way doesn't make economic sense...it can't be sustained.

[ZForce915]

George W. Bush is the worst president we've ever had.

Care to back it up?

Love to!

GEORGE W. BUSH RESUME (2003)
The White House, USA

* ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
* I attacked and took over two countries.
* I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the Treasury.
* I shattered the record for biggest annual deficit in history.
* I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
* I set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
* I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
* I am the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
* In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
* After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.
* I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any president in US history.
* In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
* I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.
* I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
* I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
* I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president since the advent of TV.
* I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other president in US history.
* I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
* I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
* I cut health care benefits for war veterans.
* I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
* I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
* I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.
* Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (The 'poorest' multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her).
* I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.
* I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.
* I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
* I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
* I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any other president in US history.
* I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
* I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.
* I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
* I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
* I withdrew from the World Court of Law.
* I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
* I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.
* I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
* The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
* I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
* I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
* I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
* I took the world's sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
* I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
* I am the first US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
* I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
* I set the all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations bidding for gov't contracts.
* I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history. In a little over two years I have created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided that the US has been since the civil war.
* I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.


* RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
* I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).
* I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during a time of war.
* I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
* All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my father¹s library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
* All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
* All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
* Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

* PERSONAL REFERENCES:
* For personal references, please speak to my dad or uncle James Baker (They can be reached in their offices at the Carlyle Group where they are helping to divide up the spoils of the US-Iraq war and plan for the next one.)

To the Bush supporters, I say...ZING!

[Titans24]

WOW! I think people tend to blame and/or give credit too much to just one person. As for Iraq, people have to realize how bad our intelligence has been over the past 12 years. In February of 1998 Clinton was telling everybody that Iraq had WMD. Each president was going off of information handed up to them. Bin Laden has been attacking America and American interests abroad long before 9/11....even when Clinton was president. There is a group of people in this world that wants to end our way of life in America. They don't care who the President is or what our intentions are.
I don't think Bush is stupid or dumb. I don't think Kerry or Clinton is either. These people are very intelligent people. I just don't understand the name calling. If people don't like Bush, then don't vote for him. Don't like Kerry don't vote for him. But I hope all of these people that write the passionate posts will vote in November. Maybe we should start a new forum...cheap@ss_politicians.

[optimusprime]

That was disgusting using the images of the murder of 3,000 people to launch & promote a re-election campaign.

And how do you feel about Kerry using his Vietnam service as an issue? How many Americans died there? 50,000?

Here is the difference, Kerry fought in the Vietnam War and survived. Bush during 9-11 flew around the country like a coward until it was safe to land. If he would have been inside that inferno trying to save lives then it would`ve been okay I guess.

Coward? He's the president. You can't honestly expect him to run into burning buildings to rescue people. I see you point, but its absurd to compare the two situations....one guy was a soldier at the time and one guy was the president....both did their job, i'm sure, to the best of their ability.

Also, just for reference, Kerry was in the Navy, not in the jungle. I don't doubt that his service was heroic, but it was a little different from what most people associate with Vietnam (a lot of people went through a lot worse than him).

[ryanbph]

1) To those who much is given, much is expected in return. It's in the bible, you selfish $#*%. Try reading it sometime

I have read it, but nowhere in the bible does it say the govt should decide where the money goes, practically every govt program fails...wellfare isn't working, ss isn't working as it will go bankrupt, I make my donations to charities that I deem fit, not the govt...how is deciding whyere my money goes selfish..

2) Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich didn't vote for war.

Yeah he is a real popular fellow

) 33% of the current budget deficit is a result of the Bush tax cut for the wealthy. If 10% of the U.S. population earns 90% of the wealth, then 90% of Bush's tax cut went to just 10% of the population. Don't even try to convince me that Cheney "earned" his $36 million per year as head of Halliburton a few years ago. That's just a load of garbage.

and 9/11 had nothing to do with the economic slowdown, if a rich person puts on an addition, he hires builders, buys wood, and other products that need to go onto this addition, it puts people to work, and keeps the economy going..flat tax is the way to go in my opinion...and as for the pay of cheney, does arod "earn" the approx 16 million a year he is getting with the yankees, or does tom crusie or other actors " earn " the large amounts of pay for the 6-8 months that they work on a movie..it is supply and demand..if someone is to pay you that money, are you going to say no, or have the gov't take over 1/4 of it, or would you rather decide where the money goes, be it charities, friends/family in need, or put it in your own pocket, it should be your choice..

the gov't has grown dramitically, in mass in a state of about a million people, the budget is 6 billion dollars, that is crazy,

[hulk409]

Yes, the sane people are ignoring this thread because it is pointless in trying to talk to these people. Statements such as these are just ridiculous:

"1) To those who much is given, much is expected in return. It's in the bible, you selfish $#*%. Try reading it sometime. "

Who said anything was GIVEN to these people. They take risks to get rewards. If the reward of wealth is not there, nobody will take the risk of starting a new business. Who the hell do you people think actually create jobs? It isn't the president. It isn't congress. All they can do is get out of the way of the free market. There is a reason that we have, by far, the largest economy in the world. It is called capitalism. If you want socialism, go to Europe. Come on people this is not rocket science.

P.S. The Bible also says, "Thou shalt not steal." If I want to give money to somebody, I will. It is not for the government to decide for me.

[The_Continental]

Hold on!

In the last 2 years, there has been a serious amount of job loss in the US.

But let's not forget that in 2001 THE LARGEST METROPOLITAN TRADE CENTER IN THE WORLD was destroyed.

Now, admittedly, I am no economist, but if that incident didn't have some lasting effect on the economy, then I'm a monkey's uncle.

[x0thedeadzone0x]

this thread's kind of pointless to argue, because there's always always ALWAYS going to be someone that disagrees with you, no matter how strong your case is, how many points you have on your subject, and how many people believe you. the fact is, people are different because that's how we were born. people are gonna like kerry, people are gonna like bush. try not to contradict so much because each person has every right to express their opinion, though try not to in a flaming sort of way.

personally i think bush is a complete idiot, and yes is he responsible for most of the deficits for this country owed. why did he lower the rich, because there are TONS of americans out there who don't own 3 cars, who don't live in mansions, etc etc. point is, if they can pay for all that nice fancy shit they can afford to have that much tax money taken. people would KILL to be rich, literally. besides most rich americans anyways that i've heard of sit on their fat asses all day eating mcdonalds or greasy food and telling people what to do. maybe not necessarily fat but you get the point. but anyways back to bush. hes caused a massive 500 billion dollar deficit for our country. sure he wouldn't like to be involved in a country during 911 and all presidents are hard, but don't fucking run away. "optimusprime: both did their job, i'm sure, to the best of their ability." ... well that says a whole lot for bush. plus listen to his language, i'm not surprised he writes his own speeches because they sound sometimes like shit...

don't flame me. i'm just expressing my opinion like others of you have strongly done. and my motion is rested, no matter HOW many angry flaming comments i get after this. love bush or hate him, but IMO he's a dickweed and I hope his assed gets slammed by someone. Even Kerry will set the place somewhat straight, because he's basically just destroyed it IMO. Again, i am at rest. that means dont FLAME me, because i'm not going to check back and angrily respond like most others of you do. k??!!

[Scrubking]

this thread's kind of pointless to argue, because there's always always ALWAYS going to be someone that disagrees with you, no matter how strong your case is, how many points you have on your subject, and how many people believe you. the fact is, people are different because that's how we were born. people are gonna like kerry, people are gonna like bush. try not to contradict so much because each person has every right to express their opinion, though try not to in a flaming sort of way.

personally i think bush is a complete idiot, and yes is he responsible for most of the deficits for this country owed. why did he lower the rich, because there are TONS of americans out there who don't own 3 cars, who don't live in mansions, etc etc. point is, if they can pay for all that nice fancy shit they can afford to have that much tax money taken. people would KILL to be rich, literally. besides most rich americans anyways that i've heard of sit on their fat asses all day eating mcdonalds or greasy food and telling people what to do. maybe not necessarily fat but you get the point. but anyways back to bush. hes caused a massive 500 billion dollar deficit for our country. sure he wouldn't like to be involved in a country during 911 and all presidents are hard, but don't fucking run away. "optimusprime: both did their job, i'm sure, to the best of their ability." ... well that says a whole lot for bush. plus listen to his language, i'm not surprised he writes his own speeches because they sound sometimes like shit...

don't flame me. i'm just expressing my opinion like others of you have strongly done. and my motion is rested, no matter HOW many angry flaming comments i get after this. love bush or hate him, but IMO he's a dickweed and I hope his assed gets slammed by someone. Even Kerry will set the place somewhat straight, because he's basically just destroyed it IMO. Again, i am at rest. that means dont FLAME me, because i'm not going to check back and angrily respond like most others of you do. k??!!

TROLL!

[MaxBiaggi3]

ss isn't working as it will go bankrupt

SS is going bankrupt because Bush raided the piggy bank to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, his elective oil war (pre-emptive strike), and the general war on terror (another money hole like the "war on drugs").

It all comes back to simple economics. If you don't have the money to spend, you don't spend it. The U.S. shouldn't be declaring itself the world's police force and attacking Saddam Husein when it doesn't have the capital to pay for such war efforts, especially without international support and clear evidence to justify such actions.

If you feel strongly in favor of this war, you're welcome to volunteer to go over to Iraq and get yourself shot or blown up for the good of the cause, whatever you think it is. I believe the Iraq war is a complete waste of human lives, tax dollars, etc. Bush used 9/11 to create a culture of fear that gave him a blank check to attack Iraq and give his greedy oil dynasty access to Iraq's oil reserves.

[The_Continental]

Bush's "résumé" has been floating around the Internet for months now. It is clearly unverifiable. Hell, Snopes can't even verify it. (As someone else previously noted)...

Bottom line? We can't afford Kerry, literally. He wants to create a national health plan that would cost upwards of %40 more than your current income tax. Me? I wouldn't be able to live off 35% of my paycheck.

I assume this is also true for most of you.

**The +40% tax hike is based on current income tax rates in GB**

reference:http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/life/tax/income_tax_rates.htm

[x0thedeadzone0x]

you suck scrubking. :P

[The_Continental]

Bush used 9/11 to create a culture of fear that gave him a blank check to attack Iraq and give his greedy oil dynasty access to Iraq's oil reserves.

Quote by Colin Powell:

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by
the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of
empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent
many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom
beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in
return is enough to bury those that did not return."

It became very quiet in the room.

reference:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/powell-empires.htm

[optimusprime]

Hold on!

In the last 2 years, there has been a serious amount of job loss in the US.

But let's not forget that in 2001 THE LARGEST METROPOLITAN TRADE CENTER IN THE WORLD was destroyed.

Now, admittedly, I am no economist, but if that incident didn't have some lasting effect on the economy, then I'm a monkey's uncle.

Dear Uncle Monkey,

First of all, most of the people who lost jobs at the WTC were killed in the tragedy, so they aren't unemployed.

Second, while temporary shut downs hurt business for many of the firms in the WTC and surrounding areas, you can't ignore all of the construction/architectural/construction contracting/civil contracting work that resulted from the disaster.....that work provides jobs, and acts as an economic stimulant.

So, while you may be a little right, I'd have to disagree overall. I think that the fear, grieving and uncertainty that resulted from the attack had far more of an impact on the economy than the physical loss of the buildings.

[magilacudy]

You can't be serious saying that the WTC being destroyed had nothing to do with economic slowdown. The government is paying out for all these victims' families, for memorials, for terrorist surveillance, and much much more. Who do you think is paying for this stuff? Plus Fortune 500 companies were virtually destroyed in the disaster. The economy depended on them, businesses needed them for their own needs... Yes, there are new jobs made, but its not like you can just hire anyone off the street.. I'm talking about white collar jobs, not construction.

And for flat tax? I do not understand what you're saying at all. Do you think the 10% of the population with more than 90% the money in the United States will be willing to give freely? Especially since a majority of actors, politicians, sports icons, CEOs have publicly denounced the government's war efforts? Hey, if you want to run a country you can not depend on the kindness of strangers. Thats how we amounted our debt in the first place, through reparations and payments in various wars that other countries promised us they'd pay back eventually. And I don't see how the government has 'grown dramatically'. It has grown with our nation, I really don't know how you would be able to prove such a statement.

These billionaires and millionaires have prospered in the US, it was being here in this country that gave htem the opportunity to reach their status. So why not make them pay more. They have money to spare. Face it, where else is this money going to come from, the middle and lower classes? Don't they have enough to worry about, like trying to get by?

[ryanbph]

SS is going bankrupt because Bush raided the piggy bank


people have been talking about it going bankrupt since the mid 1980's and you want to blame GW Bush for a policy that can't work in todays society


especially without international support and clear evidence to justify such actions.
61 countries, is international support...the big countries in opposition, ie russia, germany and france, had ties to saddam, and were getting paid to not go in...that is why they aren't so tough now in their stance in the UN, after Baker went to visit them, with the info on their involvement...Damm even the UN was being paid by iraq

give his greedy oil dynasty access to Iraq's oil reserves.

I haven't seen gas prices drop, where is all this oil we are supposed to be looting

Yes war sucks, and we are still their...but we are still in germany and japan since ww2, we are still in vietnam, we are still in the kosov area, a mission that clinton said would take somewhere between 3 and 6 months...this always happens..republicain or democrat say the same thing

[phillip1887]

I have a hard time understanding why fiscally and politically conservative folk defend W. so voraciouslydefend this administration. Bush and the Republican Congress are clearly fiscally irresponsible (cutting taxes while drastically increasing spending seems to go against all notions of fiscal conservatism). One only has to look at the current price tag for the Medicare package (subject to change daily) to understand that this administration and congress are acting like FDR tax and spend democrats without the taxation. It only takes someone familiar with rudimentary notions of economics to understand that this isn't a fiscally viable method to operate the government. Furthermore, this administration has turned its back on one of the fundamental doctrines of political conservatism, federalism. That the president would even thing to announce his support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and thereby usurp a state's authority to define marriage as it likes should be offensive to political conservatives (regardless of whether you dislike the idea of gay marriage). All in all, I find the blindly partisan support of Bush by so-called conservatives to be appalling (much like the conservatives surely found the blind allegiance to Clinton during the 90's by liberals).

[phillip1887]

That's just my 2 cents. Sorry about the typos.

[speedracer]

Let me preface what I'm saying by admitting I am a political activist. I spend much of my free time forming and promoting progressive liberal causes. I have for many years now.

It's why I stay out of these political threads. :lol:

I'm sick and tired of hearing the same old sick and tired arguments against President Bush. There's a wealth of information in the world. The internet makes life very easy on this front. If you want to bash his economic policy, spend a coupla hours doing some real research. If you want to bash his foreign or domestic policy, DO SOME REAL RESEARCH.

These lists everyone keeps spouting, these little tidbits do nothing but irritate everyone that has to scroll past them. If you want your argument to be taken seriously, for Christ's sake, you need to take your own argument seriously.



But let's not forget that in 2001 THE LARGEST METROPOLITAN TRADE CENTER IN THE WORLD was destroyed.

Now, admittedly, I am no economist, but if that incident didn't have some lasting effect on the economy, then I'm a monkey's uncle.

I think you have a valid hypothesis given the topical evidence, but I don't think the hard supporting evidence is there. The Bush administration has advocated an extreme liberalization of the tax code, one that in no way jibes with government as we know it, much less with a 30% increase in discretionary spending over the same period. This soaring debt (and complete lack of any reigning in) has instilled fear in the world around us, economically speaking. There are far ranging reprucussions for actions like these, like a falling dollar, etc.

I think of them like pebbles thrown in a pond. 9/11 certainly caused ripples. Accounting scandals also created ripples, as did what I described above. I think if you were to watch the ripples come in, 9/11 would be an afterthought to the other issues, particularly the tax code boulder.

9/11 certainly makes for a convenient excuse though. It would appear that the Republican re-election will focus on how 9/11 was catastrophic on all fronts, and I think that's complete garbage. Sure, it hosed our psyche, but it's no rational excuse for our any of the situations we find ourselves in, with the exception of Afghanistan, IMO.

Oh, and gas prices are going up because the price of oil is based on the US dollar, and since the Treasury has decided that a weak dollar is a great way to screw with trade numbers without doing anything overt, they feel the side effects are worth the figures they'll be able to spout come presidential debate time. You're paying for it at the pump. 30 cents or so more a gallon in the last two months last time I checked. The dollar isn't done falling either, so look for gas to get more expensive as the year goes on.

Whether the dollar should be devalued is a different thread.

Welcome to Global Economics 101.

[BABETOOTH]

That was disgusting using the images of the murder of 3,000 people to launch & promote a re-election campaign.

And how do you feel about Kerry using his Vietnam service as an issue? How many Americans died there? 50,000?

Here is the difference, Kerry fought in the Vietnam War and survived. Bush during 9-11 flew around the country like a coward until it was safe to land. If he would have been inside that inferno trying to save lives then it would`ve been okay I guess.

Coward? He's the president. You can't honestly expect him to run into burning buildings to rescue people. I see you point, but its absurd to compare the two situations....one guy was a soldier at the time and one guy was the president....both did their job, i'm sure, to the best of their ability.

Also, just for reference, Kerry was in the Navy, not in the jungle. I don't doubt that his service was heroic, but it was a little different from what most people associate with Vietnam (a lot of people went through a lot worse than him).

Point well taken, and of course I dont expect the president to run into burning buildings, I do however expect him to show his face and show the world that the head of the most powerful nation in the world is not afraid of terrorists. Instead he took the advise to fly around till it was safe. By the way, he's done this before. (Vietnam) :wink:

[ryanbph]

Personally, as a conservative, I don't like bush, or many of the leaders in the congress..but the attacks made by people on this board that don't like him, for the most part aren't pertinent to him as a president..Our government has gotten much bigger, and if it has grown with our nation, then why is their less people putting into ss then getting ss...in voting, I really don't need to bother, their is no way in hell bush is winning MA, and I haven't been to happy with his actions, but compared to what we will get in return, I don't see how kerry would make this country great..the rich according to Democratic top level politicians, is a combined household income of over $72k a year..that is $36k per person in a 2 income home..I don't see how they should be classified in the highest tax bracket, with over 65% of americains making more then $50k a year, that seems to me middle class not rich..

[speedracer]

ryanbph: I'm not looking to Kerry to be some great leader. I don't even know (or care) if he'll be better than Bush.

I want legislative gridlock.

You cannot have a single party control the entire legislative branch or all hell breaks loose. The results would be the same, regardless of the party in control. There must be compromise if any semblance of the will of the people is to exercised.

[The_Continental]

But let's not forget that in 2001 THE LARGEST METROPOLITAN TRADE CENTER IN THE WORLD was destroyed.

Now, admittedly, I am no economist, but if that incident didn't have some lasting effect on the economy, then I'm a monkey's uncle.

I think you have a valid hypothesis given the topical evidence, but I don't think the hard supporting evidence is there.

I'm not saying that there is hard evidence either, in fact, I prefaced that comment with an "I'm no economist but ..."

It was more a comment to spur more, as you requested, fact based discussion and argument. So far, I think it is working. . .

speedracer, I am not entirely in line with the following quote, but I read it on another board, as an "activist" what is your reaction to it?

"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole."
-Thomas Sowell


please tell me you have a day job.

[ryanbph]

I agree that their needs to be a balance, but besides the tax cut, I haven't seen the republicains stand strong on anything, they are wasting their potential to make changes




speedracer, can you explain to me why the democrats are using the bush lied to us attacks, many of the people who are saying that bush lied to us, either 1. voted for the power for bush to go to war, citing the intelligence as iraq being a threat, or 2. said that iraq was a threat when clinton bombed them in 1998...wouldn't it help their push for power if they went on the offensive saying you messed up, we knew they had weapons (so this isn't contradicting what they had previously said) we gave you the power to attack, and you couldn't find them, now we face a bigger threat as the weapons were probably given to other rogue nations, and terrorist organization...I would find that an attack on bush like this would cause more damage then you lied

[Scrubking]

speedracer, can you explain to me why the democrats are using the bush lied to us attacks, many of the people who are saying that bush lied to us, either 1. voted for the power for bush to go to war, citing the intelligence as iraq being a threat, or 2. said that iraq was a threat when clinton bombed them in 1998...wouldn't it help their push for power if they went on the offensive saying you messed up, we knew they had weapons (so this isn't contradicting what they had previously said) we gave you the power to attack, and you couldn't find them, now we face a bigger threat as the weapons were probably given to other rogue nations, and terrorist organization...I would find that an attack on bush like this would cause more damage then you lied

They're too busy being liberals and/or have no brains. :wink:

[magilacudy]

They're too busy being liberals and/or have no brains. :wink:

I concur

[MaxBiaggi3]

61 countries, is international support...

Very funny. Foreign soldiers numbering in the double or low triple digits (50 troops from South Africa, 800 from Japan, etc.) does not constitute true "international support" in any sense of the word when the U.S. takes the brunt of the casualties and pays the bulk of the expenses. It only adds insult to injury when you consider that the U.S. had no right to invade Iraq to begin with (no WMDs, no chemical/biological weapons, no immediate threat to us, etc.).

If Bush had let the UN weapons inspectors do their job (instead of recklessly charging troops in without knowing all the facts), we wouldn't be in this ridiculous mess there to begin with. The weapons inspectors would have found there were no major violations there, no innocent civilians (or U.S. soldiers) would have been killed, no $86 billion would have been wasted on this "war," etc. No, Bush had to charge in like a Texas cowboy to show everybody how tough he was taking out Saddam (because Bush couldn't find the real villain bin Laden).

[ryanbph]

61 countries is international support...I don't remember when clinton went into bosnia/kosovo their being un support, it was after he took military action, that the un jumped in

If Bush had let the UN weapons inspectors do their job

Ahh, you mean like they had done the previous 12 years..yeah they did a great job, hans blix has never ever found WMD on any job that he was put in charge of..the french were tipping Iraq on where/when the inspectors where coming..I also clearly remember that clinton didn't have permission from the UN to bomb iraq in 98, as well as what he did in bosnia..The UN recently said they can't handle Hati, and you expect them to handle Iraq..the contradiction from the democrats is amazing..kerry, who has criticized bush on not goin to the UN, said that we waited to long to act in Hati, kerry goes on to say he would have waited 48 hours then sent the troops, why wouldn't he wait for UN support, oh yeah they said they couldn't handle it

[daphatty]

I just have one question for Mr. Bush.

You are the leader of the free world with power beyond your wildest dreams. What proof can you offer "your fellow americans" that your decision to attack Iraq truly was based on quantifiable proof rather than being a family vendetta in which you had to finish what your father started?

[PsyClerk]

What family vendetta? Bush Sr whupped Saddam back in Desert Storm. Which is actually not very relevant, since I haven't heard of any 'family vendettas' since the Hatfields and the McCoys. It's so...1800s.

BTW Social Security has been in dire straits forever. Loooooooong before the current president and it's not the fault of any particular person or party. It's what you should expect from a socialist program in a captilistic nation.

Of course, I lean towards the Libertarian party...we're all kooks. Carry on.

[coffman]

Oh, and gas prices are going up because the price of oil is based on the US dollar, and since the Treasury has decided that a weak dollar is a great way to screw with trade numbers without doing anything overt, they feel the side effects are worth the figures they'll be able to spout come presidential debate time. You're paying for it at the pump. 30 cents or so more a gallon in the last two months last time I checked. The dollar isn't done falling either, so look for gas to get more expensive as the year goes on.

Whether the dollar should be devalued is a different thread.

Welcome to Global Economics 101.[/quote]


Gas prices are also going up because of OPEC. Jimmy Carter started energy conservation measures during the last energy crisis, but Reagan put an end to it when he was president. I believe that OPEC is as big a threat to U.S. security as terrorist groups are. In fact, it is believed that a large portion of what Americans pay at the pump for gas eventually makes its way into the pockets of terrorists. The best way to prevent this? Buy a fuel-efficient vehicle. The U.S. government needs to increase fuel efficiency standards so that we can eventually break free of OPEC. Unfortunately, our elected officials, both Republican and Democratic, have so far refused to do anything about this. At least Kerry is one of the few who support increased fuel efficiency (which by the way is perfect for cheapasses because you'll spend less on gas!). The Republican solution is to drill for more oil in the U.S., but the U.S. simply does not have the volume of oil that is believed to exist in the Middle East. Sure, we may break away from OPEC for a few years, but they will be very upset when we run out of domestic oil and come back begging for more.

[E-Z-B]

Saddam made Bush Sr. look like a chump, so there's your family vendetta. Bush Sr. beat him, but Saddam only grew stronger afterwards.

[PsyClerk]

Uhhhh, try again. Saddam thought he was toast when Kuwait was liberated. He was expecting military forces to storm Baghdad. He was relieved when it didn't happen. In addition, the UN imposed severe sanctions on him (sort of thing happens when you decide another nation really ought to be part of your own). I wouldn't say he was stronger. He was able to slaughter Iraqis that had opposed him openly when they thought those same armed forces were going to take the capital, though. I guess you could say he seemed relatively stronger.

And you missed my point. Any 'family vendetta' is pure imagination, justification for a position after arbitrarily adopting it. If you honestly think someone would put their (successful) political career in jeopardy over an imagined slight, you need a reality check.

Honestly I don't care if you don't like GWB, but if you dislike him, find a real reason to do so. A lot of the arguments I've seen used to denounce him can be applied to EVERY politician. My family is in politics, and I've seen/heard shocking things from politicians that would deal them major damage if made public. (big surprise) With the exception of maybe some minor local elected officials, they ALL have bad sides and shady dealings. Often, elections are just deciding the lesser of two evils. Other times, it's a choice of the devil you know and the devil you don't.

[evilmax17]

And you missed my point. Any 'family vendetta' is pure imagination, justification for a position after arbitrarily adopting it. If you honestly think someone would put their (successful) political career in jeopardy over an imagined slight, you need a reality check.


I think YOU need a reality check. Why would such a vendetta be imaginary? The Bushes are human just like the rest of it, and people holding grudges are quite common. Saying that somebody wouldn't put their "career" on the line for it is rather unfounded. He never actually said "we're going after Saddam because our family hates him", but rather he made up an excuse. IE: WMD. Somebody needs to take human nature 101.

BTW, i don't know if GWB's political career is all that successful, but i suppose that argueing this would be futile.

[equest943]

here's the lowdown: If you think the ads suck, then you're probably a democrat or hate bush. Some people from the 9/11 families thought it honored their lost family members, others though it was teh geh.

[kaw]

americains deserve to loose jobs, we produce shitty products that are overpriced...


I think its more the fact that American workers get paid too much to produce said products. It makes it hard to stay competitive when your labor expense is 500% higher than your competition (who outsources jobs).

How can you agree with that? This is the reason WHY 2.5 million jobs have disappeared since 2001. The republican party needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Outsourcing jobs will help corporate executives buy that second 7 series beemer, not help a family of four forced to work at wal-mart because their job was outsourced.

The times are changing. That's why you need to go to college these days. Sure, executives are getting rich, but they have stockholders to account for too. How can you justify paying a person $60,000+ per year (as some of our factory workers make) with full pension and benefits to insert tab A into slot B all day? My way may not seem fair, but your way doesn't make economic sense...it can't be sustained.

I graduated from college and have worked as a computer programmer for the past 5 years for a rather large, rather azure corporation. I had excellent performance ratings since I started and I even had a nice promotion. Last month I was told my project is going to Brazil. Hardly a tab A slot B job manufacturing job you're referring to.

The explosion of the Internet has just presented the means to easily communicate and distribute work to lower wage nations. And this is happening everywhere to professional, educated, hard-working Americans. Bush hasn't said a damn thing about this, and supports free trade because it helps his fat-cat executive chums. Only recently has Kerry begun to denounce the outsourcing topic. Seeing how Kerry was in favor of NAFTA, I'm sure he's just taking the opposite stance to drum up some emotional votes. Which leads me to my next point...

I believe George Carlin said something to the effect of, "If you vote and think it matters then you're part of the problem." Like it or leave it, there is a lot of truth in that statement. In the end you're just choosing the lesser of two evils. They're all liars.

[moiety]

this thread's kind of pointless to argue

No one's really arguing per se. When it comes to heated topics such as politics, you're gonna get heated debates.

personally i think bush is a complete idiot, and yes is he responsible for most of the deficits for this country owed. why did he lower the rich, because there are TONS of americans out there who don't own 3 cars, who don't live in mansions, etc etc. point is, if they can pay for all that nice fancy shit they can afford to have that much tax money taken. people would KILL to be rich, literally. besides most rich americans anyways that i've heard of sit on their fat asses all day eating mcdonalds or greasy food and telling people what to do. maybe not necessarily fat but you get the point. but anyways back to bush. hes caused a massive 500 billion dollar deficit for our country.

Take an economics class to learn all the fun reasons why *rich* people pay little taxes. I can't remember the exact figures, but it was something like up to $9x,000 yearly income, which the majority of American households make, they pay a certain amount of income tax (of course, taxes also vary by state). Then, over that yearly amount, the tax rate is lower. A much smaller percentage of Americans make over $100,000/year. Thus, they retain more of their income. I took the class so long ago, I can't remember the other things that got the rich exempt or paying lower rates. Even looking back to history, the upper class tends to have the upper hand in society/politics.

Also, while we've been in debt for quite a long time, we were making headway. Then all this money spent on Iraq just sent that red number up again. If only the president, whoever it is, could just concentrate on improving our economy, etc... instead of exerting our "power" over everyone else.

Ah, late night ramblings...

[moiety]

In the end you're just choosing the lesser of two evils. They're all liars.

Sad, but so true. They say whatever they can to get elected, then don't do what they promised. It's really unfortunate that it's never genuine. All politics and money.

[defender]

This thread is a ticking timebomb.

Some things I will add.

Scrubking- I agree with you 100%...I am fully republican.

To the rest of you Bush bashers...many of you have no basis for your silly arguements. They are just opinions and twisted words. While I do not think Bush is an amazing president...I do think he is doing the best job he can. I dont really think much would be different under Al Gore. Politicians are all about the same. Clinton was a HORRIBLE president. He got by on charm. Everything he promised during his campaign died. WTF happened to national health care that was the base of his election campaign! It was all bull. As for Kerry...he seems like he could be a capable president but dont be fooled...he is a regular bullshitting politition. I would rather see Edwards get the nomination. At least Bush is doing things wether people like it or not. He was elected by a small margin and still to this day his percent of people that would vote for him is near 50%. So who knows if he will or will not get reelected. I do know that anyone who believes all the crappy democratic propaganda is a complete moron! Bush is actually one of the closest "average joe" presidents that America has ever had. While he may have gone to an Ivy League school even dems admit that he didnt belong except for his family getting him in. How many of you belong in an Ivy League school.

Also no one likes to mention anything good about Bush. What about the fact that he has one of the BEST possible cabinets that the US government has ever seen. Rice, Rumsfeld, and Powell...cmon thats a super team. Gore would have just micro managed everything and gotten nothing done. Bush delegates to trusted people. He has given not only an African American a solid chance at being a power in this government but an African American Woman! No one gives the man any credit. The economy started to suck ass while Clinton was around...I really think that without those tax cuts and rebates that Bush did we would be really much worse. I had a good year when he was elected and many people bought items with those rebates. It helped. As for one person who mentioned that Bush bankrupted the US Treasury...BULLSHIT! Show me where that's been published? If you took an economics class you would know that borrowing money aint all bad and its actually the American norm. Without debt, and credit we would not be a strong economy and WE ARE STRONG! We still have one of the best economies in the world. Travel around the world for some proof on that.

As for him being a war monger...bullshit again. We got attacked first remember! Now the world knows that we dont fucking play around and I hope Bush gets elected to finish the job. If kerry gets elected and pulls the troops that would be a disaster. We should spend everything we can to get the middle east headed in a better direction... Clinton was a dick and didnt get anything done. Bush sr at least showed balls but it was his son who had to finish the job that Clinton refused to do.

Bush aint all bad and all this democratic mud slinging is pure garbage. I could go on and on and on about this thread and some of the real bullshit thats been posted but I gotta get home.

Anyone here read about John Titor? This election could prove to be the spark.

[RedvsBlue]

..the french were tipping Iraq on where/when the inspectors where coming..


Yes! Finally a valid reason to attack France. Come on who's with me? Please, anyone. Hell it couldn't be THAT hard to get UN support.

[RedvsBlue]

...Bush is actually one of the closest "average joe" presidents that America has ever had. While he may have gone to an Ivy League school even dems admit that he didnt belong except for his family getting him in. How many of you belong in an Ivy League school.

He has given not only an African American a solid chance at being a power in this government but an African American Woman!

Ok first I still firmly believe that Bush being an "average joe" is the exact reason he got elected and why I firmly believe he will get reelected. To all the people who say he is a moron I ask you this: Let's see you, as an average person, get up in front of how many millions of people (who are looking for every possible chance to critique you) and deliver a perfectly flawless speach. Hell I misspeak myself when I'm talking to just one other person. I just like to think of it that way even though no one will see the point I'm trying to make.

As for the second point that is absolutely ludacris! I mean come on everyone knows that the republicans are nothing but racists. Despite the fact that it was the party that freed the slaves they're just racist. Come on I mean that's what the media tells us right and everyone knows the media is always right. I believe someone also mentioned something about Johnson being a white supremicit... I hope all my fellow Republicans realize that I'm using deep amounts of sarcasm in my second statement. Basically how I feel is that individual people are racist, sexist, ignorant, etc. not political parties (except perhaps the Nazi party and some of those other nuts).

[speedracer]

Yikes.

I tried to be civil at least. Geez. I wouldn't be quoting Thomas Sowell if I was looking for credibility. He's not exactly a part of a solution. Any solution. Then again, judging from the quote you selected, I don't think it's credibility or integrity you're looking for. Go find someone else to sling mud at, and shame on you.

speedracer, can you explain to me why the democrats are using the bush lied to us attacks, many of the people who are saying that bush lied to us, either 1. voted for the power for bush to go to war, citing the intelligence as iraq being a threat, or 2. said that iraq was a threat when clinton bombed them in 1998...wouldn't it help their push for power if they went on the offensive saying you messed up, we knew they had weapons (so this isn't contradicting what they had previously said) we gave you the power to attack, and you couldn't find them, now we face a bigger threat as the weapons were probably given to other rogue nations, and terrorist organization...I would find that an attack on bush like this would cause more damage then you lied

No I can't, and I hope my explanation of why I can't will sink in.

You can't categorize an entire political movement in US politics anymore. There's just not enough in any one faction of either party to say that any speak for "the party". I know within the Democratic party, there are 5 very distinct and vocal factions that I have to deal with before I can even get a stamp of approval on local issues. THEN I get to take it to conservatives. Your analogy on the "Bush lied" situation is dead on. It's why Howard Dean is going to spend the rest of the year doing anything but running for president. The Democratic base rejected the argument because the argument was poor. It would be akin to me screaming that all Republicans are protectionist and anti-fair trade because President Bush slapped an illegal tariff on imported steel. That's ridiculous.

On this 1998 thing, I happen to probably remember better than most what happened there. You see, I was in full battle gear, my equipment was being loaded onto C-130's, and I was sitting on the tarmac at Ft. Bragg, NC, a Private First Class, waiting for the word to get on the plane. My unit had already told me to activate any plans for my family since I was going to be gone at least six months. I was pretty bummed.

And then an unlikely "savior" stepped in. Senate Majority leader Trent Lott decided that he did not support taking out Saddam, did not support any military action against Iraq whatsoever, despite their constant violation of the no-fly zone and the lack of progress with inspections. I'll never forget it when asked if it meant he didn't support our troops. He said "I can support the troops without supporting the president".

Word.

psst. No one likes the UN. Not even "liberals". We believe it to be a necessary evil, just as most conservatives do.

On this Al Gore thing, I don't know what his administration would have looked like, but it's water under the bridge. We have far too much on our plate right now to be wondering about has-beens.

At least Bush is doing things wether people like it or not. He was elected by a small margin and still to this day his percent of people that would vote for him is near 50%.

Which has made most of his actions so intolerable to those that disagree with him. When an elected official wins by more than 7%, it's considered a landslide and that person has a mandate. It is accepted that whatever that elected official does is the will of the people, and their actions will usually go unquestioned for their first term. Mr. Bush didn't have a mandate, but has acted like it. This is inherently divisive. Think Reagan. The dude won 49 states ferchrist'ssake. That's a blank check. Mr. Bush's victory was certainly not.

What about the fact that he has one of the BEST possible cabinets that the US government has ever seen. Rice, Rumsfeld, and Powell...cmon thats a super team.

1. It's not the best cabinet ever. Not even close. Not even the best of the last 20 years. Reagan's was much better.

2. Name some amazing acheivement they have accomplished. Name some unbelievable piece of legislation they got thru that has fundamentally changed America for the better.

Saying they are great doesn't make them so.

On the average joe thing, am I wrong for wanting the leader of the free world to be a leader instead of an average joe? Am I wrong for thinking the world's most powerful position should be reserved for someone just a little bit better than average?

See? I didn't call anybody stupid or say that someone has no brain. Is it that difficult?

Did I miss anything?

[paz9x]

A few things I don't like about Bush:

1) Tax cuts for the wealthy. Someone please explain to me why rich people need a tax cut. It's not like their kids won't eat dinner tonight or go to a good school without one. I don't want Social Security to go down the toilet tomorrow so a bunch of fat cats can get a tax break today.
*It is called trickle down economics, think what you will but it is a legitimate economic plan, read up

2) Lies. WMDs, chemical/biological weapons, al Qaida ties, imminent threat to the U.S., etc. This load of BS created a culture of fear to justify finishing what Bush Sr. didn't do in Iraq, and countless innocent Iraqi civilians and American soldiers continue to die as a result.
*First off, I doubt he was lying, but he was definately wrong, even saddam thought he had some of that crap.The easy road wasnt taken, things went the way they went because he thought he was right and made the best decisions he was able to, complain about his decisions all you want, but get off the gov conspiracy, they were decisions.

3) $500+ billion dollar deficit. A basic rule of accounting is that you don't spend more than you earn, and yet Bush somehow managed to go from a budget surplus in 2000 to today's record-high deficit in barely three years' time, a debt we and our children will have to pay for years to come.
*as a basic rule if I dont have cash handy and my kids need food then ill use credit to get them what they need. If I fear for my family and want a security system installed to keep burglars and murders out of my house and dont have the cash handy then it goes on credit. If our country needs things and we dont have the budget then F it id rather be taken care of and pay for it down the road.

This administration has acted in a completely reckless and arrogant manner far beyond anything I simply disagree with. The Bush White House and its policies are inherently evil and must be stopped.[b]
*I know its easy to forget what happened to our country overnight a couple septembers ago. Does anybody criticizing the economy remember what happened to our stock market and the economy? we are just now beginning to recover from that and it will take a lot longer then whomever wins the next election will be in office.

*lastly, everyone person who spouts off in this thread, whichever side you may agree with, better be exercising your right to vote. If you choose to exericse your right to run your mouth you should at least be exercising the right to vote which is the basis for everything else.

[master_evil]

As much as I hate to admit it, Bush will win the next elections simply because he's a Bush. Bush has a mafia, oh and don't be surprised if the White House says close to elections that they have captured Osama or a high Al Qaeda officer.

[defender]

nice rebuttal speedracer...I wasnt sure half the time which side you were on even...good arguments for sure...

ok maybe his cabinet is not the BEST but I like them and they seem to be extremely competent and yes REAGAN was the man! I loved him as President and I remember all the people protesting him too. People just think they are rebels and cool if they protest the government and that's really annoying to me.

As for Bush being an average joe..thats why I think he was elected too because Gore seemed like a stiff martian. Charisma gets people elected nowadays and not agendas. I think it has been this way for a while and even more so after Reagan but I think it all started with Kennedy. I hate Kennedy, he was a poor president too except for NASA. I think my favorite pres of all time has to be...umm...Theodore Roosevelt. Everything I read about him is interesting.

I didnt bash Kerry at all and like I said..if he becomes President I am not so sure much would change. I think the republicans would win congress and house and any tax changes would get killed. Kerry also would be an idiot to pull out the troops but if he does then so be it.

Saying they are great doesn't make them so.
Are you a lawyer or in law school? My lawyer taught me a similar quote.
Just because someone says that its so doesnt mean it is

[Scrubking]

People just think they are rebels and cool if they protest the government and that's really annoying to me.

Same here, and it seems like the net is full of it.

[defender]

am I wrong for wanting the leader of the free world to be a leader instead of an average joe


No you are not wrong for wanting the leader of the free world to be a leader of high standards. BUT you are wrong for wanting the actual leader (BUSH) to stop trying to free the rest of the world. Should he only lead the free people? Or should he be reasponsible enough to desire freedom for everyone. Despite any economic problems or corportate crap going on...Bush seems to be a legitemate believer in America and spreading its great freedom. I cant think of a President in recent memory that has actual cared about the problems of the world. And writing a check or creating sanctions is just bull. We should go out and free the rest of the world.

[speedracer]

*I know its easy to forget what happened to our country overnight a couple septembers ago.

It's easy to forget 9/11? W.T.F.?!?!

No you are not wrong for wanting the leader of the free world to be a leader of high standards. BUT you are wrong for wanting the actual leader (BUSH) to stop trying to free the rest of the world.

I don't have a serious problem with our freeing the rest of the world, I just am more concerned with our security right now. We've always been big fans of spreading democracy, and while I don't think it's for everyone, it should be the end goal. I think we spread it better by just being ourselves, free trade, open and dynamic discussion of civil rights, etc. I don't think the world wants to hear our rhetoric. Words are cheap and all that jazz, ya know? It's one thing to say that Liberia was a dump, but we sure traded our asses off with em. That's where I think we should be focusing our efforts.


Should he only lead the free people? Or should he be reasponsible enough to desire freedom for everyone. Despite any economic problems or corportate crap going on...Bush seems to be a legitemate believer in America and spreading its great freedom. I cant think of a President in recent memory that has actual cared about the problems of the world.

I respectfully disagree. I believe that every president of the last 25 years has truly wanted a world of peace and prosperity, and has focused a serious amount of effort in that direction. Hate the man personally, but Clinton brought many different kinds of people to many different kinds of tables. Bush Sr. was also a foreign relations expert (having headed the CIA and being a Veep), he just didn't play well with the public. Reagan was a foreign relations deity. Carter seemed at times to care more about foreign problems than domestic ones, which is why he found his ass on the curb after one term.

And writing a check or creating sanctions is just bull. We should go out and free the rest of the world.

I agree with the writing a check thing. I think it's a total copout. I think the only countries that should be receiving aid from us are countries that meet a stringent list of requirements, including basic human rights, definable movement towards the liberalization of the economies (free trade), and can somehow be tied to our national security. Giving money to an African nation would be a good example. I think one that is trying to get it together would be worthy of an AIDS grant from us, since I believe that the disease can possibly be a security issue for us in the future. Things like that.

I disagree with the sanctions thing though. It's a big bad ugly world out there, and I don't want our soldiers fighting everywhere all the time. You gotta remember, whether we think we're right or not, we aren't the world's policemen. There's a whole lotta philosophical questions that must be answered if we truly wish to walk your path. Other countries are sovereign and do not subjugate themselves to the United States. When we start deciding what's best for everyone, words like "empire" start getting thrown around, and for good reason. Having said that, I think sanctions are a great way to exercise influence and control without directly getting involved. If we don't like what you're doing, we don't trade with you. That hurts when you get cut out of the massive trading machine that is our economy. We have the right to choose our trading partners, and they have the right to choose to meet the requirments of our trading partners.

[magilacudy]

I will be the first to admit I'm not a social studies major, I'm not informed about the government or politics, and to some extent I really don't want to be. Am I part of the problem? Who knows.

What's my point? Reading through the topics just reminded me of that Simpsons Halloween episode where aliens kidnapped and replaced Clinton and Dole. heh.

EDIT: In what may be a moment of clarity, I'm just curious if anyone has seen parallels to the Manifest Destiny credo of the 1800's to what Bush is trying to accomplish tese days in the name of expanding freedom.

Resume partisan battling...

[evilmax17]

As for Bush being an average joe..thats why I think he was elected too because Gore seemed like a stiff martian. Charisma gets people elected nowadays and not agendas. I think it has been this way for a while and even more so after Reagan but I think it all started with Kennedy.


Well actually, Gore won the majority of the votes, and Bush was appointed president by the US supreme court (the only president to have done so). This all boils down to a major flaw in the way that presidents are elected, namely the electoral college. Funnily enough, the state that all the fuss was about was Florida, the same state in which Bush's brother was govenor. Yet another coincident eh?

I sadly do agree with the comment on charisma though. It's really too bad that the most important thing to most average voters is the personality of the candidate.

[minx]

Nader may end up ruining it again for the democrats. I don't understand the people that will vote for him...they must be either too dense to realize or too idealistic to care that Nader can't win, and that his entering the race only makes it more likely that the lesser-of-two-evils is going to lose.



Attitudes like that arethe reason people are afraid to vote for the third party/independent candidates they really want to :-(

Personally, I refuse to be intimidated by fear of what other people may or may not do.

My vote is mine and mine alone and thus I vote for exactly who I want regardless of who everyone else's voting for.

so far, it looks like I'll be voting for Nader.......

...... unless somebody better comes along

[paz9x]

[quote=paz9x]
*I know its easy to forget what happened to our country overnight a couple septembers ago.

It's easy to forget 9/11? W.T.F.?!?!

That was sarcasm buckaroo.
I think a lot of this garbage spewing abotu all the problem our president has"created" have been a direct result of those events.

it seems people forget the magnitude of that event and the waves of effects that followed it.

[RedvsBlue]

As for Bush being an average joe..thats why I think he was elected too because Gore seemed like a stiff martian. Charisma gets people elected nowadays and not agendas. I think it has been this way for a while and even more so after Reagan but I think it all started with Kennedy.


Well actually, Gore won the majority of the votes, and Bush was appointed president by the US supreme court (the only president to have done so). This all boils down to a major flaw in the way that presidents are elected, namely the electoral college. Funnily enough, the state that all the fuss was about was Florida, the same state in which Bush's brother was govenor. Yet another coincident eh?

I sadly do agree with the comment on charisma though. It's really too bad that the most important thing to most average voters is the personality of the candidate.



You can't honestly tell me you're going to bring this up. No offense but this arguement has become that of a last resort for liberals now. Losing an arguement about Bush as president? Throw out the Supreme Court card. It really gets old.

I seem to remember a Liberal group/website that was started a little while ago that was called Moveon.org. For those of you who don't know what they were started for was as a response to the impeachment trials and basically their message was move on from this and let's get back to running the country. I just get tired of people dragging up old stuff that really isn't important anymore or frankly at the time.

There is a reason we have an electoral college. The reason why is because if we didn't then the only places that candidates would be campaigning at would be the big population centers and states like North Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, etc. wouldn't get any attention from the presidential candidates and their potential re-election campaign. The Electoral College basically forces a candidate to appeal to the general nationwide public not just major population centers. Its all a part of the game that is politics.

[The Cheapest Ass Gamer]

As for Bush being an average joe..thats why I think he was elected too because Gore seemed like a stiff martian. Charisma gets people elected nowadays and not agendas. I think it has been this way for a while and even more so after Reagan but I think it all started with Kennedy.


Well actually, Gore won the majority of the votes, and Bush was appointed president by the US supreme court (the only president to have done so). This all boils down to a major flaw in the way that presidents are elected, namely the electoral college. Funnily enough, the state that all the fuss was about was Florida, the same state in which Bush's brother was govenor. Yet another coincident eh?

I sadly do agree with the comment on charisma though. It's really too bad that the most important thing to most average voters is the personality of the candidate.



You can't honestly tell me you're going to bring this up. No offense but this arguement has become that of a last resort for liberals now. Losing an arguement about Bush as president? Throw out the Supreme Court card. It really gets old.

I seem to remember a Liberal group/website that was started a little while ago that was called Moveon.org. For those of you who don't know what they were started for was as a response to the impeachment trials and basically their message was move on from this and let's get back to running the country. I just get tired of people dragging up old stuff that really isn't important anymore or frankly at the time.

There is a reason we have an electoral college. The reason why is because if we didn't then the only places that candidates would be campaigning at would be the big population centers and states like North Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, etc. wouldn't get any attention from the presidential candidates and their potential re-election campaign. The Electoral College basically forces a candidate to appeal to the general nationwide public not just major population centers. Its all a part of the game that is politics.

Kudos to RedvsBlue for actually thinking about why the founders decided on the electoral college system. You know, it does serve a purpose, people. If states like California, New York, and Florida ruled supreme over all the others, the laws and lawmakers would be completely ignorant of Montana and Wyoming's needs. Say what you want, but George Bush won the election fair and square under the constitution.

Now, onto Dubya, himself. I personally don't have much of a problem with his ads, but I can't believe his campaigners are so incredibly stupid that they would do such a thing. They should have known that the opposition would be fierce (and probably legitimate). I could have made a better campaign ad than that one. Up until about a year ago, I supported Bush, but I'm going with Kerry this time around. Anyone who thinks Bush has a good shot is delirious.

[evilmax17]

RedVsBlue- did you not see what I quoted? I was merely correcting something that somebody else had stated. I wasn't "dragging things up" or anything even close to that, I was responding to a specific quote.

Actually, the electoral college is somewhat outdated. Do a little research. A big factor in the founding of this system was directly related to the three-fifths compromise, in order to appease the southern states. At the time, it was necessary. Today, it is not. Where else have you heard of a contest in which a person who gets the most votes ends up being the loser? Our system makes that possible.

Also, since when were "the liberals" losing a battle about Bush as president? You know what REALLY gets old? When FACT after FACT after FACT is presented to conservatives about Bush, and they just brush it off as partisan politics. I swear to god, if Bush was caught murdering somebody, the republicans would just say "Oh those crazy liberals. This is all just left-wing mud slinging."

So what about the facts? Do you really believe that the lack of WMDs or evidence of Iraq as a threat was really the result of "faulty inteligence"? That the highest branch in charge of intelligence couldn't see things that many "average joes" had seen before the war even began? You don't think political/family bias played into the iraq war? Stop being nieve!

[RedvsBlue]

Also, since when were "the liberals" losing a battle about Bush as president? You know what REALLY gets old? When FACT after FACT after FACT is presented to conservatives about Bush, and they just brush it off as partisan politics. I swear to god, if Bush was caught murdering somebody, the republicans would just say "Oh those crazy liberals. This is all just left-wing mud slinging."



Can you honestly tell me that its any different when there is a Liberal president? The are always people out there that are hard core for their candidate. Speaking of which, I'm not always 100% pro Bush myself.

[defender]

Also, since when were "the liberals" losing a battle about Bush as president? You know what REALLY gets old? When FACT after FACT after FACT is presented to conservatives about Bush, and they just brush it off as partisan politics. I swear to god, if Bush was caught murdering somebody, the republicans would just say "Oh those crazy liberals. This is all just left-wing mud slinging."

So what about the facts? Do you really believe that the lack of WMDs or evidence of Iraq as a threat was really the result of "faulty inteligence"? That the highest branch in charge of intelligence couldn't see things that many "average joes" had seen before the war even began? You don't think political/family bias played into the iraq war? Stop being nieve!

lol...

so what FACTS do you have to back up this conspiracy theory of yours! FACTS FACTS FACTS...as a Republican I must have overlooked them in your statement.

lol...

U Got Pwnd

[The Cheapest Ass Gamer]

Actually, the electoral college is somewhat outdated. Do a little research. A big factor in the founding of this system was directly related to the three-fifths compromise, in order to appease the southern states. At the time, it was necessary. Today, it is not. Where else have you heard of a contest in which a person who gets the most votes ends up being the loser? Our system makes that possible.

Madison, Jefferson, and the rest of the founders just knew that information didn't travel well, and people could be easily manipulated, and they wanted to give citizens of small states more power than they would otherwise have. It was a tool to keep the small states from being oppressed. It is still important because candidates have to compete in all areas.

Consider an NFL analogy: Direct election by popular vote would be like abolishing the super bowl. Instead, all of the points earned in the season would be tallied up and the team with the most points would be the champions. That wouldn't work because the "winning" team might be good only at running the score up against pathetic teams, but would lose when battling another similar team.

Basically, if you look at the blue/red map county-by-county rather than state-by-state, you'll see why Al Gore won the popular vote. NY state is mostly bush, except for areas like NYC, where Gore won by a landslide. Or in PA, where Gore won Philly and Pittsburgh, but lost almost everywhere else. You can't have a president who everyone in NYC and LA loves, but doesn't do much for people in upstate NY or rural PA.

So what about the facts? Do you really believe that the lack of WMDs or evidence of Iraq as a threat was really the result of "faulty inteligence"? That the highest branch in charge of intelligence couldn't see things that many "average joes" had seen before the war even began? You don't think political/family bias played into the iraq war? Stop being nieve!

If you're taking that stance, I challenge you to explain to me why Bill Clinton had the exact same position in 1999 as Bush does now. He was very concerned with getting rid of Saddam's supposed WMDs, and even supported Bush for going into Iraq in 2003! If it wasn't faulty intelligence, why did Clinton react the same way as Bush???

[E-Z-B]

Looks like Stern will likely be kicked off the air this week: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/03/06/howard.stern.ap/index.html

Although you could say "well, he sucks anyway", stern's comment about "There's a cultural war going on. The religious right is winning. We're losing" is dead on. I predict that others will follow shortly, especially if he's re-elected. MTV. Will & Grace. Bill O'Reilley for being anti-bush lately. Just wait and see.

[PsyClerk]

Will & Grace should be gone just because it's a horrible, horrible show. When I become emperor, you'll see a lot more shows gone.

Wait, did I just reveal part of my diabolical plans?

[speedracer]

E-Z-B, I think you have your tinfoil hat on a bit tight. Arguing the merits of a "culture war" is one thing, you went a tad far.

minx, I challenge you to name a single foreign policy of Nader's. Without looking it up. To up the difficulty infinitely, make it a social issue.

You're damn right you can't. Don't worry. Neither can most of his campaign staff, or the Green party who dropped him because they felt they were being used by him. But I'm sure you already knew that, right?

Personally, I refuse to be intimidated by fear of what other people may or may not do.

This isn't being brave, voting for Nader. You don't even know his positions. You're a rebel without a brain, crucifying your vote. Don't let us stop you, and if you need help, let me know. I'm a huge Darwin fan myself.

I completely and absolutely disagree with the electoral college. Not only does it weigh the election in favor of smaller states by making their votes count more than large states, but the initial reasoning behind it is dead as well. Back in the day, it made sense because without the politician actually showing up, there was virtually nothing a normal citizen would know about the candidates. That couldn't be more wrong today. You see them every single hour on news networks.

You think anyone really gives a damn about Iowa? Is the democratic process really helped because some joe nobody from some nobody state get their breakfasts served to them by a candidate? Meh.

The electoral college is one of the most corrupting factors in politics today. Swing states get hooked up with pork like a mofo. Buying of votes, plain and simple.

It's affirmative action in favor of little states and the lucky few "swing" states. This is America. One vote should equal one vote. PERIOD. Are you proponents of the college also supporting affirmative action? Hell no you aren't.

On top of it, the voters in the big states are completely robbed, particularly California and New York. No candidates ever do anything in either state since they're both "owned" by Democrats. Real fair. New Hampshire gets 25 visits, the two biggest states in the union are lucky to pull 4 visits between em. Real fair.

Regardless of that ignorant crap that went down in Florida, a MILLION more people voted for the Democrat than the Republican, and the Republican won. This is a democratic heresy. We should all be outraged. You can spin it any way you want, but the man with more votes lost, and every one of us should be mad as hell.

Someone earlier in the thread pointed out that their vote didn't matter. Every single American should be upset about it. The theory behind the college is dead, and what it leaves in its wake is anything but direct democracy. It's voting socialism.

[starman9000]

Political arguments in america...

Liberals are stupid.
Uh uh...conservatives are stupid.
No you are.
No you are...

But Your president dodged the draft
no yours did

Yours did pot
So yours did coke

Yours started a war we have no business in
No yours did.

etc....etc...etc...

[E-Z-B]

E-Z-B, I think you have your tinfoil hat on a bit tight. Arguing the merits of a "culture war" is one thing, you went a tad far.

Speedracer, I don't think you got my point. Sorry if the inference from my statement was too complex to understand. The point was that should the right wing continue to have its way, censorship will become more and more common, as already apparent with Howard Stern, ER, the 10 second or so delay on the oscars, the anti-bush ads on the superbowl, and the current attemp from the republicans to ban all television ads from moveon.org.

[speedracer]

Sorry if the inference from my statement was too complex to understand.

lol.

you tell em dude. screw the bourgeois fascists that have an expectation of decency from media coming across public airwaves.

i think you should open a thread specifically so you can opine ad infinitum ad nauseum. don't let the man, much less a bourgeois pig like myself, hold you down. go get a soapbox (your own thread) and punk me.

Remember to show a timeline of cultural changes on television in this country to better back yourself up. You know, contrast how it was all groovy titties and wide open sex on the tube in the 50's and how the man has put the clamp down today. That should be a real easy one.

[magilacudy]

Speedracer... E-Z-B wasn't talking about censorship throughout the history of TV. He's talking about what Bush and the Republicans are censoring NOW, in the name of decency. Groovy '50s titties and such are irrelevant. I thought you were somewhat credible before you made that statement. Even though your position is different, you are still the '*insert affiliation but I'm assuming liberal* without a brain' compared to all the other posters you criticize on this thread. i agree that the voting system has to be changed but its not if there are people blindly sounding off and flaming everyone else thinking you have some deeper insight than everyone else.

I'm sorry, but who does Bush really think hes fooling saying now its alright to exploit 9-11 images when hes up for reelection, fully retracting his previous view of it? I'm not fully agreeing with EZB, as those isolated incidents aren't endemic of the Republican party, but I believe those are just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. I am scared what is to come in the name of the Patriot Act, the Freedom Act whatever Act is to come, that we will self-censor ourselves in the name of freedom, to not risk looking Un-American. Am I paranoid, maybe. But people defending little things like that are what allows the government to take bigger steps that will eventually lead to such a future.

[E-Z-B]

Remember to show a timeline of cultural changes on television in this country to better back yourself up. You know, contrast how it was all groovy titties and wide open sex on the tube in the 50's and how the man has put the clamp down today. That should be a real easy one.

Again, speedracer, you miss my point, misread my statements, and continue to use your own condescending tone toward everyone else who disagrees with you. The "cultural war" quote wasn't even mine. I never said it. I never tried to defend it. It was a quote from Stern that I agree with. My point is that censorship and the right to free speech wil get even worse. So here's my evidence: the Howard Stern show is the same today as it was 20 years ago. There's no difference between now and when Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton were in office. But it's getting banned now. Could it be because he's been anti-bush? You be the judge. And save your condescending attitude next time.

[E-Z-B]

Speedracer... E-Z-B wasn't talking about censorship throughout the history of TV. He's talking about what Bush and the Republicans are censoring NOW, in the name of decency. Groovy '50s titties and such are irrelevant. I thought you were somewhat credible before you made that statement. Even though your position is different, you are still the '*insert affiliation but I'm assuming liberal* without a brain' compared to all the other posters you criticize on this thread. i agree that the voting system has to be changed but its not if there are people blindly sounding off and flaming everyone else thinking you have some deeper insight than everyone else.

I'm sorry, but who does Bush really think hes fooling saying now its alright to exploit 9-11 images when hes up for reelection, fully retracting his previous view of it? I'm not fully agreeing with EZB, as those isolated incidents aren't endemic of the Republican party, but I believe those are just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. I am scared what is to come in the name of the Patriot Act, the Freedom Act whatever Act is to come, that we will self-censor ourselves in the name of freedom, to not risk looking Un-American. Am I paranoid, maybe. But people defending little things like that are what allows the government to take bigger steps that will eventually lead to such a future.

Well spoken.

[Quackzilla]

I just don't get it.

He abuses the country! Its like fucking 1984!

He makes a huge budget cut for the schools, and says he is helping them. The people beleive him.

He makes huge tax cuts only for rich people, and says that it helps poor people. The people beleive him.

There is a difference between patriotic and being so fucking loyal to the president that you let the bastard destroy the environment, the ecomomy, and any chance of world peace.

[speedracer]

Speedracer... E-Z-B wasn't talking about censorship throughout the history of TV. He's talking about what Bush and the Republicans are censoring NOW, in the name of decency. Groovy '50s titties and such are irrelevant. I thought you were somewhat credible before you made that statement.

Really? Is it at ANY time proper to speak about a change without first referencing and understanding what was the past? If anything but to better understand the present? Must this always be spelled out? Would it be censorship if (insert personal favorite politician) was doing it? Maybe, but you'd actually sit down and educate yourself on the topic before the fire-and-brimstone holier-than-thou schpiel no wants to hear anyway. How do you honestly expect people to take you seriously if everyone here knows that you don't know anything about the subject at hand?

But speedracer, that's not the point. The point is that Bush is a civil rights killer. No shit. But saying "Bush is a civil rights killer" gets nothing accomplished. Saying something like:
----------------
Obviously, so-called "decency" laws have not been enforced over the last twenty years by an increasing timid Federal Communcations Commission. Virtually every major challenge posed by the FCC has been smashed, both in the courts of law and the court of public opinion. Once a decade or so, someone with far too much time on their hands will push the FCC's hand, and the corresponding smackdown in courts follow. Isn't it about time we took this debate to the people? Isn't it about time we removed politics from the equation and actually looked at the subject at hand? Is TV an art form, and can art truly be "indecent"? I would surmise that when cooler heads prevail (as they invariably do), a answer will be plain, in keeping with the First Amendment. Until then, we should appraise any attempt at political opportunism with nothing less than scorn and bestow distrust on those that would so richly deserve it. In this case, the administration, wholly on this censorship bandwagon, has earned nothing less. Framed against the myriad of lite-authoritative (some would argue fascist) policies characterizing the presidency of Mr. Bush, it becomes clear that anyone choosing rights, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should search for their candidate elsewhere.

And since everyone's a good patriot, I would assume that means everyone will be looking elsewhere.
---------------------

Took me a whopping 10 mins to churn out.

Even though your position is different, you are still the '*insert affiliation but I'm assuming liberal* without a brain' compared to all the other posters you criticize on this thread.

:roll:

This is what turns people off, this mindless regurgitation of the obvious. Tell em something they haven't heard. Tell em something they didn't read on the little ticker as it went by on Fox or CNN. Anyone can have a topical poo-flinging contest, but what gets done?

Make a point. Be different.

[magilacudy]

Yes, it would be censorship if *favorite politician* did it. I don't have any favorite politician, but I do know what censorship is. Is it proper to talk about change without first referencing the past? Well, how far back do you want to go, when TV was first invented? Or how about when art itself was invented. Maybe we can get some of Caesar's viewpoints, or President of Cave 47 Oog's censorship of cavewomen. I don't really see what your point is, as you keep flipping other people's arguments around so they are barely recognizable. From EZB's quote it seems like he's talking about recent history, he even reiterates that.

...

Obviously, so-called "decency" laws have not been enforced over the last twenty years by an increasing timid Federal Communcations Commission. Virtually every major challenge posed by the FCC has been smashed, both in the courts of law and the court of public opinion. Once a decade or so, someone with far too much time on their hands will push the FCC's hand, and the corresponding smackdown in courts follow. Isn't it about time we took this debate to the people? Isn't it about time we removed politics from the equation and actually looked at the subject at hand? Is TV an art form, and can art truly be "indecent"? I would surmise that when cooler heads prevail (as they invariably do), a answer will be plain, in keeping with the First Amendment. Until then, we should appraise any attempt at political opportunism with nothing less than scorn and bestow distrust on those that would so richly deserve it. In this case, the administration, wholly on this censorship bandwagon, has earned nothing less. Framed against the myriad of lite-authoritative (some would argue fascist) policies characterizing the presidency of Mr. Bush, it becomes clear that anyone choosing rights, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should search for their candidate elsewhere.


I believe that was what what EZB said, only not in as many words. You use big words, wow!, but hey you're saying the same thing as everyone else.

CENSORSHIP=GREY AREA. Read the other thread about censoring games.

BUSH ADMIN="lite-authoritative (some would argue fascist) policies". Both of those viewpoints have been already stated ad infinitum, only you have added insults to both sides.

"Isn't it about time we removed politics from the equation and actually looked at the subject at hand? "

Then get on your own soapbox and opine endlessly.

And to top it all off, who are you to tell anyone to educate themselves when you aren't putting facts down yourself. The only sources you provide are slander and knocks against other people's intelligence. Hey, I can stoop down to your level too.

Quote from me:
you are still the '*insert affiliation but I'm assuming liberal* without a brain'

And you said in response:


This is what turns people off, this mindless regurgitation of the obvious.


Your words speak for themselves.

[E-Z-B]

Bush is a civil rights killer. No shit. But saying "Bush is a civil rights killer" gets nothing accomplished. Saying something like:
----------------
Obviously, so-called "decency" laws blah blah blah langauge from dictionary.com yadda yadda yadda
---------------------

Took me a whopping 10 mins to churn out.
:roll:.

Again, the condescending attitude used to win an argument. For that, you get this:
http://ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/positive14.jpg
(credit to WSB)

[x0thedeadzone0x]

Some of you are so strongly outspoken that you'll do anything in order to get your opinion across, level-head intact or not. Apparently I'm not reiterating the obvious because this is somewhat out of control. Flaming people isn't the answer, it's the problem, which starts this all over again in another thread, on a different subject, and the cycle is repeatedly abused until one's feelings gets considerably hurt or all the people end up DEAD.

Ok, so such previous statement isn't true. Point is, don't be liberally bashing other persons because such notion doesn't meet your recognized standards of decency on your own accord.

Took a whopping 1:30 to type out. :roll:

[magilacudy]

Hehe. I should've timed myself. It took a while though 5+ minutes because of all the copying and pasting, and I had to edit it cuz I forgot to delete some parts :?

[MaxBiaggi3]

I just don't get it.

He abuses the country! Its like fucking 1984!

He makes a huge budget cut for the schools, and says he is helping them. The people beleive him.

He makes huge tax cuts only for rich people, and says that it helps poor people. The people beleive him.

There is a difference between patriotic and being so fucking loyal to the president that you let the bastard destroy the environment, the ecomomy, and any chance of world peace.

Well spoken.

[speedracer]

I believe that was what what EZB said, only not in as many words. You use big words, wow!, but hey you're saying the same thing as everyone else.

Bush is bad.

Do you need anything more?