Bush Television Ads

[quote name='"E-Z-B"'][quote name='optimusprime'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='ryanbph']americains deserve to loose jobs, we produce shitty products that are overpriced...[/quote]


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).[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='optimusprime'][quote name='ZForce317']George W. Bush is the worst president we've ever had. [/quote]

Care to back it up?[/quote]

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.)[/quote]

To the Bush supporters, I say...ZING!
 
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.
 
[quote name='BABETOOTH'][quote name='optimusprime'][quote name='E-Z-B']That was disgusting using the images of the murder of 3,000 people to launch & promote a re-election campaign.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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).
 
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,
 
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.
 
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.
 
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??!!
 
[quote name='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??!![/quote]

TROLL!
 
[quote name='ryanbph']ss isn't working as it will go bankrupt[/quote]

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.
 
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
 
[quote name='MaxBiaggi3'] 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]

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
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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).
 
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.

[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='optimusprime'][quote name='BABETOOTH'][quote name='optimusprime'][quote name='E-Z-B']That was disgusting using the images of the murder of 3,000 people to launch & promote a re-election campaign.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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).[/quote]

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:
 
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..
 
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.
 
[quote name='speedracer']
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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

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.
 
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
 
[quote name='ryanbph']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[/quote]

They're too busy being liberals and/or have no brains. :wink:
 
[quote name='ryanbph']61 countries, is international support...[/quote]

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).
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Saddam made Bush Sr. look like a chump, so there's your family vendetta. Bush Sr. beat him, but Saddam only grew stronger afterwards.
 
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.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk']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.
[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='optimusprime'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='optimusprime'][quote name='ryanbph']americains deserve to loose jobs, we produce shitty products that are overpriced...[/quote]


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).[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']this thread's kind of pointless to argue[/quote]

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

[quote name='x0thedeadzone0x']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. [/quote]

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...
 
[quote name='kaw']
In the end you're just choosing the lesser of two evils. They're all liars.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']..the french were tipping Iraq on where/when the inspectors where coming..[/quote]


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.
 
[quote name='defender']...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! [/quote]

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).
 
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
Click to expand...

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%.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
[quote name='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.
*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.[/quote]
*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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='defender']People just think they are rebels and cool if they protest the government and that's really annoying to me.[/quote]

Same here, and it seems like the net is full of it.
 
am I wrong for wanting the leader of the free world to be a leader instead of an average joe
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
 
[quote name='defender']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.
[/quote]

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 must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top