POLL #2: OFFICIAL CAG Presidential Election 2004 POLL: The Sequel
- Thread starter CheapyD
- Start date
turdferguson
CAG Veteran
Anyone capable enough to run for president isn't an idiot. I can't stand John Kerry but I wouldn't insult my own intelligence by calling him an idiot. You, musha666, made a very telling remark about your own intelligence with such a low-brow statement.
[quote name='turdferguson']Anyone capable enough to run for president isn't an idiot. I can't stand John Kerry but I wouldn't insult my own intelligence by calling him an idiot. You, musha666, made a very telling remark about your own intelligence with such a low-brow statement.[/quote]
That statement makes no sense. Sure you can run for President and be an idiot. Is there something in the constitution that prohibits that, which I am not aware of? And if so, how do they judge? Is there an Idiot-O-Meter? And how is that insulting his own intelligence? I don't follow you. Besides, there have been plenty of idiots who have run for President. There have even been idiots who have been President. But that's fine, the people elected these men. That just shows their intelligence. But just because someone is smart enough to identify (in their opinion) an idiot and decide they will not vote for them does not insult their intelligence. If anything, it exemplifies their intelligence.
(I am not endorsing the previously criticized opinion, just pointing out that this kid makes no sense.)
That statement makes no sense. Sure you can run for President and be an idiot. Is there something in the constitution that prohibits that, which I am not aware of? And if so, how do they judge? Is there an Idiot-O-Meter? And how is that insulting his own intelligence? I don't follow you. Besides, there have been plenty of idiots who have run for President. There have even been idiots who have been President. But that's fine, the people elected these men. That just shows their intelligence. But just because someone is smart enough to identify (in their opinion) an idiot and decide they will not vote for them does not insult their intelligence. If anything, it exemplifies their intelligence.
(I am not endorsing the previously criticized opinion, just pointing out that this kid makes no sense.)
fireball343
CAGiversary!
[quote name='musha666']There is no way anyone would institute a draft. Its political Suicide.... Both canditates have their problems, might as well keep things simple and leave Bush in to finish his term.[/quote]
there is no need for a draft, the voulenteer system is fine at the moment and will be for many years to come, the draft was already proposed and turned down. it's not going to happen, rockthevote.com(along with other sites and organizations) have refused to stop saying there will be a draft under bush.
www.kerryoniraq.com you can order the free dvd or watch it online, it is a video compiled of interviews, speeches and other media of John Kerry himself thoughout the past 3 years and his postitions on the war in iraq.
here's the trailer, it is cut at bad points that make some of it seem doctored, but if you watch the whole thing you'll see for your self.
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC132004T.wmv
there is no need for a draft, the voulenteer system is fine at the moment and will be for many years to come, the draft was already proposed and turned down. it's not going to happen, rockthevote.com(along with other sites and organizations) have refused to stop saying there will be a draft under bush.
www.kerryoniraq.com you can order the free dvd or watch it online, it is a video compiled of interviews, speeches and other media of John Kerry himself thoughout the past 3 years and his postitions on the war in iraq.
here's the trailer, it is cut at bad points that make some of it seem doctored, but if you watch the whole thing you'll see for your self.
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC132004T.wmv
I don't like John Kerry but I have to say that I've had differing opinions on Iraq over the last 2 years also. It's a luxury most of us have because we are NOT the president.
What I don't like is the fact that the administration has muddied the waters regarding the war. We went in to enforce the UN resolution 1441, period. There was more than enough evidence that the original cease fire terms from 1991 were being violated and we had every right to do so.
Bush and his team felt the need to hype nuclear capabilities and launch a propaganda campaign about Saddam being a bad guy. And, while not directly saying there was a 9/11 link, allowed the comparisons to propagate unchallenged in the popular mindset for their own benefit.
What I don't like is the fact that the administration has muddied the waters regarding the war. We went in to enforce the UN resolution 1441, period. There was more than enough evidence that the original cease fire terms from 1991 were being violated and we had every right to do so.
Bush and his team felt the need to hype nuclear capabilities and launch a propaganda campaign about Saddam being a bad guy. And, while not directly saying there was a 9/11 link, allowed the comparisons to propagate unchallenged in the popular mindset for their own benefit.
That's true.
But if we went in saying 'We're going to enforce UN Res 1441', the most common comment from the media and the public would probably be 'But we're not the 'World Police', let the UN do it', etc.
The hyping of nuclear/wmd capabilities was indeed, though based on intelligence and research many countries shared, meant to 'sell' the attack to Joe Public, who generally has a very short attention span and likes things in short, easy to understand bursts.
But if we went in saying 'We're going to enforce UN Res 1441', the most common comment from the media and the public would probably be 'But we're not the 'World Police', let the UN do it', etc.
The hyping of nuclear/wmd capabilities was indeed, though based on intelligence and research many countries shared, meant to 'sell' the attack to Joe Public, who generally has a very short attention span and likes things in short, easy to understand bursts.
Mattiful-Joe
Henshin a go-go, baby!
I can't see the reasoning in anyone who votes for George Bush, period. In the last two months, we've been told by his own administration (Bremmer and Powell) that the war on Iraq was not only ill-justified, but driven with no exit strategy or plan to win the peace.
You don't take US troops -- sons, daughters, fathers of families -- and rush into war with bad intelligence, no post-war plan, and when it was apparent most of your key allies were obviously against you.
Sure, we haven't lost nearly as many troops in Iraq as we did in 'Nam, but make no mistake, the Iraqi war will be remembered in American history as the 'Nam of the new generation. What Bush has created in Iraq is nothing short of a foreign affairs nightmare -- a quagmire that's sure to last for at least another (as Bush's own generals have said) five to ten years.
Re: the draft -- though Bush denies he'll institute it, we essentially have a "back-door" draft going on right now. Who do you think goes to war as families get pinched by this ever-dismal economy. As Bush's so-called tax cuts continue to strain middle class Americans, who's kids do you think end up going to war? It's not the wealthiest 1% of America's parents whose sending kids over. Draft or no draft, the US will need FAR MORE troops to get the job done in Iraq -- if we don't increase troop presence, Iraq will take longer than five years, and that, my friends, is a quagmire we don't want to be in -- democrat or republican.
Fact is Bush, IMO, will offer "more of the same." He's pretty much said exactly that on his campaign trail. What has he said that makes you think he's going to change his policy? He continues to say Kerry can't get the support of allies -- no offense, Mr. President, but Mr. Kerry has a far better chance of getting any internation support than you ever will.
What I like about Kerry is that he understands not just warfare, but the consequences of war. What the heck are we taught all the time in English, anyways? Haven't we read the books by Hemingway, the poetry of Crane, and the warnings by Faulkner? War is always the "LAST RESORT," and whether you support Bush or not, you can't look me in the eye and say we went into Iraq as a "last resort" -- we never gave the weapons inspections team a fair chance, we never even bothered to look at the intelligence from UN nations -- Bush and his team sold us his war, and now, we're all paying the price -- all $200 billion of it -- in lives, resources, and waste.
I say waste because no matter how much we invest in Iraq, we've already ruined our chances of coming out as heroes. Over 90% of Iraqis have unfavorable opinions of the US, and just ask the rest of the Middle East how they feel about us -- and the percentatge is even higher.
Another Bush term will mean further separation from European allies -- many here in the US just don't understand that a global war on terror requires global allies. How can you fight a war that spans continents if everyone -- EVERYONE except Britain and (lmao) Poland are your allies? You can't -- you end up bearing an unimaginable burden, and you appear weak to the rest of the world -- to you allies and to your enemies.
What the Bush Administration did was as Kerry rightfully put it -- a colossal error in judgment. He has stretched our forces so thin we're pulling troops out of the DMZ, the zone that divides a democratic South Korea and the now nuclear-capable North Korea. We're trying to piece together the mess in Iraq while Iran continues to expand its uranium enriching process.
And while we continue to waste resources in Iraq, domestic spending will continue to decline, and our families will continue to struggle. Bush's tax cut plan is a joke -- if anyone cares to look at that plan closely, I can't believe anyone who's not making more than $200k is supporting it. It's tax cuts like that that are growing the gap between the haves and the have-nots -- and it's only going to get worse under another 4 yrs. of Bush.
Kerry understands that we need the rest of the world to end the Iraqi war. He understands that the greatest asset this country has is in its hard-working middle class -- and he rightfully shifts the tax cuts to help them. The rich are just fine as they are. Most importantly, he has the judgment and careful thinking of a true president. It's one thing to be defiant, it's another to be stubborn and "steadfast" in the face of truth. Bush just doesn't get it -- he thinks all is fine. Well, when you tell Russert in an interview that you rely on your cabinet members for "objective" news and that you never read the newspapers -- well, you're no president of the people -- you're a president beholden to your own agenda. In an ironic way, Bush is Sadaam of another sort -- just as Sadaam was often told his military was falsely strong and loyal, Bush seems to think his GOP powerhouse and the American people love him.
Well, he's in for a rude awakening when he wakes up on Nov. 3. I am confident the American will see past the GOP's scare tactics and spin of the truth -- just turn on your TV to PBS and watch the real news, heck, even turn on BBC -- the reality is not covered by MSNBC or ABC -- the real media is in the independent press.
Don't be fooled by Bush and his distortions. This election should not be as close as it is. All that proves is how well the GOP controls the media casual Americans watch everyday.
Vote on Nov. 2 for change. Vote Kerry-Edwards.
You don't take US troops -- sons, daughters, fathers of families -- and rush into war with bad intelligence, no post-war plan, and when it was apparent most of your key allies were obviously against you.
Sure, we haven't lost nearly as many troops in Iraq as we did in 'Nam, but make no mistake, the Iraqi war will be remembered in American history as the 'Nam of the new generation. What Bush has created in Iraq is nothing short of a foreign affairs nightmare -- a quagmire that's sure to last for at least another (as Bush's own generals have said) five to ten years.
Re: the draft -- though Bush denies he'll institute it, we essentially have a "back-door" draft going on right now. Who do you think goes to war as families get pinched by this ever-dismal economy. As Bush's so-called tax cuts continue to strain middle class Americans, who's kids do you think end up going to war? It's not the wealthiest 1% of America's parents whose sending kids over. Draft or no draft, the US will need FAR MORE troops to get the job done in Iraq -- if we don't increase troop presence, Iraq will take longer than five years, and that, my friends, is a quagmire we don't want to be in -- democrat or republican.
Fact is Bush, IMO, will offer "more of the same." He's pretty much said exactly that on his campaign trail. What has he said that makes you think he's going to change his policy? He continues to say Kerry can't get the support of allies -- no offense, Mr. President, but Mr. Kerry has a far better chance of getting any internation support than you ever will.
What I like about Kerry is that he understands not just warfare, but the consequences of war. What the heck are we taught all the time in English, anyways? Haven't we read the books by Hemingway, the poetry of Crane, and the warnings by Faulkner? War is always the "LAST RESORT," and whether you support Bush or not, you can't look me in the eye and say we went into Iraq as a "last resort" -- we never gave the weapons inspections team a fair chance, we never even bothered to look at the intelligence from UN nations -- Bush and his team sold us his war, and now, we're all paying the price -- all $200 billion of it -- in lives, resources, and waste.
I say waste because no matter how much we invest in Iraq, we've already ruined our chances of coming out as heroes. Over 90% of Iraqis have unfavorable opinions of the US, and just ask the rest of the Middle East how they feel about us -- and the percentatge is even higher.
Another Bush term will mean further separation from European allies -- many here in the US just don't understand that a global war on terror requires global allies. How can you fight a war that spans continents if everyone -- EVERYONE except Britain and (lmao) Poland are your allies? You can't -- you end up bearing an unimaginable burden, and you appear weak to the rest of the world -- to you allies and to your enemies.
What the Bush Administration did was as Kerry rightfully put it -- a colossal error in judgment. He has stretched our forces so thin we're pulling troops out of the DMZ, the zone that divides a democratic South Korea and the now nuclear-capable North Korea. We're trying to piece together the mess in Iraq while Iran continues to expand its uranium enriching process.
And while we continue to waste resources in Iraq, domestic spending will continue to decline, and our families will continue to struggle. Bush's tax cut plan is a joke -- if anyone cares to look at that plan closely, I can't believe anyone who's not making more than $200k is supporting it. It's tax cuts like that that are growing the gap between the haves and the have-nots -- and it's only going to get worse under another 4 yrs. of Bush.
Kerry understands that we need the rest of the world to end the Iraqi war. He understands that the greatest asset this country has is in its hard-working middle class -- and he rightfully shifts the tax cuts to help them. The rich are just fine as they are. Most importantly, he has the judgment and careful thinking of a true president. It's one thing to be defiant, it's another to be stubborn and "steadfast" in the face of truth. Bush just doesn't get it -- he thinks all is fine. Well, when you tell Russert in an interview that you rely on your cabinet members for "objective" news and that you never read the newspapers -- well, you're no president of the people -- you're a president beholden to your own agenda. In an ironic way, Bush is Sadaam of another sort -- just as Sadaam was often told his military was falsely strong and loyal, Bush seems to think his GOP powerhouse and the American people love him.
Well, he's in for a rude awakening when he wakes up on Nov. 3. I am confident the American will see past the GOP's scare tactics and spin of the truth -- just turn on your TV to PBS and watch the real news, heck, even turn on BBC -- the reality is not covered by MSNBC or ABC -- the real media is in the independent press.
Don't be fooled by Bush and his distortions. This election should not be as close as it is. All that proves is how well the GOP controls the media casual Americans watch everyday.
Vote on Nov. 2 for change. Vote Kerry-Edwards.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Kerry still has shrapnel stuck in him from the "scratch" he inflicted upon himself.
That should put the swiftvet ads in perspective.
That should put the swiftvet ads in perspective.
CappyCobra
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='DangerDave']I actually have a opinion on this one, so I'm going to vote. I'm flaberghasted that Kerry is winning on this site. Democrats have always been the big spenders and big taxers. I want to save money for video games. Still, please guys, go out and vote. I don't know the percentages but I know they are pretty low for 18 to around 25 year olds.[/quote]
Heh that's why we're 7.4 TRILLION dollars in debt after 4 years of Bush. Funny, when Bill Clinton left office, we had a SURPLUS of about $240 BILLION.
Sling your propaganda elsewhere
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Heh that's why we're 7.4 TRILLION dollars in debt after 4 years of Bush. Funny, when Bill Clinton left office, we had a SURPLUS of about $240 BILLION.
Sling your propaganda elsewhere
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
pfunkpearl
CAGiversary!
Ya, democrats a not big spenders...they are usually in line with the "common man" while as bush put it in his speech to his rich investors "Some people call you the top 10% of wealth in the country, I call you my base".
CaptainObviousXl
CAGiversary!
[quote name='sying']Vote Bush! Please?[/quote]
thats a great slogan for the republicans. They put a little puppy on the screen and say "Vote Bush! Please?"
thats a great slogan for the republicans. They put a little puppy on the screen and say "Vote Bush! Please?"
CaptainObviousXl
CAGiversary!
[quote name='DangerDave']I actually have a opinion on this one, so I'm going to vote. I'm flaberghasted that Kerry is winning on this site. Democrats have always been the big spenders and big taxers. I want to save money for video games. Still, please guys, go out and vote. I don't know the percentages but I know they are pretty low for 18 to around 25 year olds.[/quote]
i though this was pretty funny to. He obviously doesnt know his politics.
Democrats- liberal, tax rich, tax cut poor
Republicans- conservative, tax poor, Tax cut poor
Also I hate how so many pro bush people always say that if your criticizing America you are being unpatriotic. You are not being unpatriotic, you are being vary patriotic. You are giving your opinion through the right of freedom of speech, trying to gain what is best for America.
oh and also you should take into consideration that we are not the only ones affected by our decisions. This is somthing that we always think. That is just a self centered characteristics we have burnt into our minds.
oh and im not going to move to france because for carring out my rights. Even though i cant vote i can still speak my mind.
i though this was pretty funny to. He obviously doesnt know his politics.
Democrats- liberal, tax rich, tax cut poor
Republicans- conservative, tax poor, Tax cut poor
Also I hate how so many pro bush people always say that if your criticizing America you are being unpatriotic. You are not being unpatriotic, you are being vary patriotic. You are giving your opinion through the right of freedom of speech, trying to gain what is best for America.
oh and also you should take into consideration that we are not the only ones affected by our decisions. This is somthing that we always think. That is just a self centered characteristics we have burnt into our minds.
oh and im not going to move to france because for carring out my rights. Even though i cant vote i can still speak my mind.
pfunkpearl
CAGiversary!
[quote name='CaptainObviousXl'][quote name='DangerDave']I actually have a opinion on this one, so I'm going to vote. I'm flaberghasted that Kerry is winning on this site. Democrats have always been the big spenders and big taxers. I want to save money for video games. Still, please guys, go out and vote. I don't know the percentages but I know they are pretty low for 18 to around 25 year olds.[/quote]
i though this was pretty funny to. He obviously doesnt know his politics.
Democrats- liberal, tax rich, tax cut poor
Republicans- conservative, tax poor, Tax cut poor
Also I hate how so many pro bush people always say that if your criticizing America you are being unpatriotic. You are not being unpatriotic, you are being vary patriotic. You are giving your opinion through the right of freedom of speech, trying to gain what is best for America.
oh and also you should take into consideration that we are not the only ones affected by our decisions. This is somthing that we always think. That is just a self centered characteristics we have burnt into our minds.
oh and im not going to move to france because for carring out my rights. Even though i cant vote i can still speak my mind.[/quote]
Yes, I agree, Pro bush people are trying to turn this country into a dictatorship, by destroying kerry signs, scaring people about terrorism, calling them unpatriotic....um....do you realize we're at war trying to rebuild a country who has the exact same problems we're creating here at home? Wouldn't theat be ironic, spread democracy abroad but make a dictatorship at home....nice..
i though this was pretty funny to. He obviously doesnt know his politics.
Democrats- liberal, tax rich, tax cut poor
Republicans- conservative, tax poor, Tax cut poor
Also I hate how so many pro bush people always say that if your criticizing America you are being unpatriotic. You are not being unpatriotic, you are being vary patriotic. You are giving your opinion through the right of freedom of speech, trying to gain what is best for America.
oh and also you should take into consideration that we are not the only ones affected by our decisions. This is somthing that we always think. That is just a self centered characteristics we have burnt into our minds.
oh and im not going to move to france because for carring out my rights. Even though i cant vote i can still speak my mind.[/quote]
Yes, I agree, Pro bush people are trying to turn this country into a dictatorship, by destroying kerry signs, scaring people about terrorism, calling them unpatriotic....um....do you realize we're at war trying to rebuild a country who has the exact same problems we're creating here at home? Wouldn't theat be ironic, spread democracy abroad but make a dictatorship at home....nice..
CappyCobra
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Amen! Just because people do not agree with other people's Pro-Bush Ideals, they slap them with labels such as 'Liberal', 'unpatriotic' or even 'traitor. I'm sick of these people's 'Join or Die' attitiude. This is a Democracy not a Communist Regime last time I checked.
It's funny how Republicans label Democrats as 'Liberal' and I think it's only fair that they (Democrats) should label them (Republicans) 'Bigots' because of that kind of mentally.
It's funny how Republicans label Democrats as 'Liberal' and I think it's only fair that they (Democrats) should label them (Republicans) 'Bigots' because of that kind of mentally.
jdpimp
CAGiversary!
This is a cool site where you can see the impact you can have about telling people to go out and vote. Check it out if you feel so inclined: http://vote.care2.com/impact.php?uid=82796e9ab92127dcabbeaaac789099d0
[quote name='CaptainObviousXl'][quote name='DangerDave']I actually have a opinion on this one, so I'm going to vote. I'm flaberghasted that Kerry is winning on this site. Democrats have always been the big spenders and big taxers. I want to save money for video games. Still, please guys, go out and vote. I don't know the percentages but I know they are pretty low for 18 to around 25 year olds.[/quote]
i though this was pretty funny to. He obviously doesnt know his politics.
Democrats- liberal, tax rich, tax cut poor
Republicans- conservative, tax poor, Tax cut poor[/quote]
Next time you want to discuss this, you should mention that 80% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 20% of income earners. Over 96% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners - the poor pay little to no taxes! So cutting taxes for the "rich" makes the most sense, because they are actually paying significant taxes!
The original poster was also right, democrats are known for raising taxes and using the gained taxpayer money to foster their "programs" while republicans are known for cutting taxes. Democrats are also known for giving bonuses/handouts to the poor, perhaps that is what you were thinking when you were talking about tax cuts for the poor (can't really cut taxes when they pay little to none).
i though this was pretty funny to. He obviously doesnt know his politics.
Democrats- liberal, tax rich, tax cut poor
Republicans- conservative, tax poor, Tax cut poor[/quote]
Next time you want to discuss this, you should mention that 80% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 20% of income earners. Over 96% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners - the poor pay little to no taxes! So cutting taxes for the "rich" makes the most sense, because they are actually paying significant taxes!
The original poster was also right, democrats are known for raising taxes and using the gained taxpayer money to foster their "programs" while republicans are known for cutting taxes. Democrats are also known for giving bonuses/handouts to the poor, perhaps that is what you were thinking when you were talking about tax cuts for the poor (can't really cut taxes when they pay little to none).
WarrenGekko
CAGiversary!
To me, both candidates are the same when it comes to the only topic that I will use when I vote for the president (Security). They have both said the same thing. So, it has been extremely difficult for me to choose one over the other. One day, I am leaning toward Bush because I know his track record. He will attack terrorists. No doubt. Since Kerry has not been president I don't know what he would have actually would have done.
However, the next day, I start leaning toward Kerry because Bush's perception in our country and around the world (Right or wrong) is that the US will not cooperate with anyone and will do whatever it wants. (Perception is reality). And I truly believe that ALL countries are responsible for the war on terror and should stop RELYING on the US to fix everything than bitch when they don't like something. We don't need Monday morning quarterback nations.
So, I am still on the fence
However, the next day, I start leaning toward Kerry because Bush's perception in our country and around the world (Right or wrong) is that the US will not cooperate with anyone and will do whatever it wants. (Perception is reality). And I truly believe that ALL countries are responsible for the war on terror and should stop RELYING on the US to fix everything than bitch when they don't like something. We don't need Monday morning quarterback nations.
So, I am still on the fence
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='romeogbs19']I can't see the reasoning in anyone who votes for George Bush, period. In the last two months, we've been told by his own administration (Bremmer and Powell) that the war on Iraq was not only ill-justified, but driven with no exit strategy or plan to win the peace.
You don't take US troops -- sons, daughters, fathers of families -- and rush into war with bad intelligence, no post-war plan, and when it was apparent most of your key allies were obviously against you.
Sure, we haven't lost nearly as many troops in Iraq as we did in 'Nam, but make no mistake, the Iraqi war will be remembered in American history as the 'Nam of the new generation. What Bush has created in Iraq is nothing short of a foreign affairs nightmare -- a quagmire that's sure to last for at least another (as Bush's own generals have said) five to ten years.
Re: the draft -- though Bush denies he'll institute it, we essentially have a "back-door" draft going on right now. Who do you think goes to war as families get pinched by this ever-dismal economy. As Bush's so-called tax cuts continue to strain middle class Americans, who's kids do you think end up going to war? It's not the wealthiest 1% of America's parents whose sending kids over. Draft or no draft, the US will need FAR MORE troops to get the job done in Iraq -- if we don't increase troop presence, Iraq will take longer than five years, and that, my friends, is a quagmire we don't want to be in -- democrat or republican.
Fact is Bush, IMO, will offer "more of the same." He's pretty much said exactly that on his campaign trail. What has he said that makes you think he's going to change his policy? He continues to say Kerry can't get the support of allies -- no offense, Mr. President, but Mr. Kerry has a far better chance of getting any internation support than you ever will.
What I like about Kerry is that he understands not just warfare, but the consequences of war. What the heck are we taught all the time in English, anyways? Haven't we read the books by Hemingway, the poetry of Crane, and the warnings by Faulkner? War is always the "LAST RESORT," and whether you support Bush or not, you can't look me in the eye and say we went into Iraq as a "last resort" -- we never gave the weapons inspections team a fair chance, we never even bothered to look at the intelligence from UN nations -- Bush and his team sold us his war, and now, we're all paying the price -- all $200 billion of it -- in lives, resources, and waste.
I say waste because no matter how much we invest in Iraq, we've already ruined our chances of coming out as heroes. Over 90% of Iraqis have unfavorable opinions of the US, and just ask the rest of the Middle East how they feel about us -- and the percentatge is even higher.
Another Bush term will mean further separation from European allies -- many here in the US just don't understand that a global war on terror requires global allies. How can you fight a war that spans continents if everyone -- EVERYONE except Britain and (lmao) Poland are your allies? You can't -- you end up bearing an unimaginable burden, and you appear weak to the rest of the world -- to you allies and to your enemies.
What the Bush Administration did was as Kerry rightfully put it -- a colossal error in judgment. He has stretched our forces so thin we're pulling troops out of the DMZ, the zone that divides a democratic South Korea and the now nuclear-capable North Korea. We're trying to piece together the mess in Iraq while Iran continues to expand its uranium enriching process.
And while we continue to waste resources in Iraq, domestic spending will continue to decline, and our families will continue to struggle. Bush's tax cut plan is a joke -- if anyone cares to look at that plan closely, I can't believe anyone who's not making more than $200k is supporting it. It's tax cuts like that that are growing the gap between the haves and the have-nots -- and it's only going to get worse under another 4 yrs. of Bush.
Kerry understands that we need the rest of the world to end the Iraqi war. He understands that the greatest asset this country has is in its hard-working middle class -- and he rightfully shifts the tax cuts to help them. The rich are just fine as they are. Most importantly, he has the judgment and careful thinking of a true president. It's one thing to be defiant, it's another to be stubborn and "steadfast" in the face of truth. Bush just doesn't get it -- he thinks all is fine. Well, when you tell Russert in an interview that you rely on your cabinet members for "objective" news and that you never read the newspapers -- well, you're no president of the people -- you're a president beholden to your own agenda. In an ironic way, Bush is Sadaam of another sort -- just as Sadaam was often told his military was falsely strong and loyal, Bush seems to think his GOP powerhouse and the American people love him.
Well, he's in for a rude awakening when he wakes up on Nov. 3. I am confident the American will see past the GOP's scare tactics and spin of the truth -- just turn on your TV to PBS and watch the real news, heck, even turn on BBC -- the reality is not covered by MSNBC or ABC -- the real media is in the independent press.
Don't be fooled by Bush and his distortions. This election should not be as close as it is. All that proves is how well the GOP controls the media casual Americans watch everyday.
Vote on Nov. 2 for change. Vote Kerry-Edwards.[/quote]
You don't take US troops -- sons, daughters, fathers of families -- and rush into war with bad intelligence, no post-war plan, and when it was apparent most of your key allies were obviously against you.
Sure, we haven't lost nearly as many troops in Iraq as we did in 'Nam, but make no mistake, the Iraqi war will be remembered in American history as the 'Nam of the new generation. What Bush has created in Iraq is nothing short of a foreign affairs nightmare -- a quagmire that's sure to last for at least another (as Bush's own generals have said) five to ten years.
Re: the draft -- though Bush denies he'll institute it, we essentially have a "back-door" draft going on right now. Who do you think goes to war as families get pinched by this ever-dismal economy. As Bush's so-called tax cuts continue to strain middle class Americans, who's kids do you think end up going to war? It's not the wealthiest 1% of America's parents whose sending kids over. Draft or no draft, the US will need FAR MORE troops to get the job done in Iraq -- if we don't increase troop presence, Iraq will take longer than five years, and that, my friends, is a quagmire we don't want to be in -- democrat or republican.
Fact is Bush, IMO, will offer "more of the same." He's pretty much said exactly that on his campaign trail. What has he said that makes you think he's going to change his policy? He continues to say Kerry can't get the support of allies -- no offense, Mr. President, but Mr. Kerry has a far better chance of getting any internation support than you ever will.
What I like about Kerry is that he understands not just warfare, but the consequences of war. What the heck are we taught all the time in English, anyways? Haven't we read the books by Hemingway, the poetry of Crane, and the warnings by Faulkner? War is always the "LAST RESORT," and whether you support Bush or not, you can't look me in the eye and say we went into Iraq as a "last resort" -- we never gave the weapons inspections team a fair chance, we never even bothered to look at the intelligence from UN nations -- Bush and his team sold us his war, and now, we're all paying the price -- all $200 billion of it -- in lives, resources, and waste.
I say waste because no matter how much we invest in Iraq, we've already ruined our chances of coming out as heroes. Over 90% of Iraqis have unfavorable opinions of the US, and just ask the rest of the Middle East how they feel about us -- and the percentatge is even higher.
Another Bush term will mean further separation from European allies -- many here in the US just don't understand that a global war on terror requires global allies. How can you fight a war that spans continents if everyone -- EVERYONE except Britain and (lmao) Poland are your allies? You can't -- you end up bearing an unimaginable burden, and you appear weak to the rest of the world -- to you allies and to your enemies.
What the Bush Administration did was as Kerry rightfully put it -- a colossal error in judgment. He has stretched our forces so thin we're pulling troops out of the DMZ, the zone that divides a democratic South Korea and the now nuclear-capable North Korea. We're trying to piece together the mess in Iraq while Iran continues to expand its uranium enriching process.
And while we continue to waste resources in Iraq, domestic spending will continue to decline, and our families will continue to struggle. Bush's tax cut plan is a joke -- if anyone cares to look at that plan closely, I can't believe anyone who's not making more than $200k is supporting it. It's tax cuts like that that are growing the gap between the haves and the have-nots -- and it's only going to get worse under another 4 yrs. of Bush.
Kerry understands that we need the rest of the world to end the Iraqi war. He understands that the greatest asset this country has is in its hard-working middle class -- and he rightfully shifts the tax cuts to help them. The rich are just fine as they are. Most importantly, he has the judgment and careful thinking of a true president. It's one thing to be defiant, it's another to be stubborn and "steadfast" in the face of truth. Bush just doesn't get it -- he thinks all is fine. Well, when you tell Russert in an interview that you rely on your cabinet members for "objective" news and that you never read the newspapers -- well, you're no president of the people -- you're a president beholden to your own agenda. In an ironic way, Bush is Sadaam of another sort -- just as Sadaam was often told his military was falsely strong and loyal, Bush seems to think his GOP powerhouse and the American people love him.
Well, he's in for a rude awakening when he wakes up on Nov. 3. I am confident the American will see past the GOP's scare tactics and spin of the truth -- just turn on your TV to PBS and watch the real news, heck, even turn on BBC -- the reality is not covered by MSNBC or ABC -- the real media is in the independent press.
Don't be fooled by Bush and his distortions. This election should not be as close as it is. All that proves is how well the GOP controls the media casual Americans watch everyday.
Vote on Nov. 2 for change. Vote Kerry-Edwards.[/quote]
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='romeogbs19']I can't see the reasoning in anyone who votes for George Bush, period. In the last two months, we've been told by his own administration (Bremmer and Powell) that the war on Iraq was not only ill-justified, but driven with no exit strategy or plan to win the peace.
You don't take US troops -- sons, daughters, fathers of families -- and rush into war with bad intelligence, no post-war plan, and when it was apparent most of your key allies were obviously against you.
Sure, we haven't lost nearly as many troops in Iraq as we did in 'Nam, but make no mistake, the Iraqi war will be remembered in American history as the 'Nam of the new generation. What Bush has created in Iraq is nothing short of a foreign affairs nightmare -- a quagmire that's sure to last for at least another (as Bush's own generals have said) five to ten years.
Re: the draft -- though Bush denies he'll institute it, we essentially have a "back-door" draft going on right now. Who do you think goes to war as families get pinched by this ever-dismal economy. As Bush's so-called tax cuts continue to strain middle class Americans, who's kids do you think end up going to war? It's not the wealthiest 1% of America's parents whose sending kids over. Draft or no draft, the US will need FAR MORE troops to get the job done in Iraq -- if we don't increase troop presence, Iraq will take longer than five years, and that, my friends, is a quagmire we don't want to be in -- democrat or republican.
Fact is Bush, IMO, will offer "more of the same." He's pretty much said exactly that on his campaign trail. What has he said that makes you think he's going to change his policy? He continues to say Kerry can't get the support of allies -- no offense, Mr. President, but Mr. Kerry has a far better chance of getting any internation support than you ever will.
What I like about Kerry is that he understands not just warfare, but the consequences of war. What the heck are we taught all the time in English, anyways? Haven't we read the books by Hemingway, the poetry of Crane, and the warnings by Faulkner? War is always the "LAST RESORT," and whether you support Bush or not, you can't look me in the eye and say we went into Iraq as a "last resort" -- we never gave the weapons inspections team a fair chance, we never even bothered to look at the intelligence from UN nations -- Bush and his team sold us his war, and now, we're all paying the price -- all $200 billion of it -- in lives, resources, and waste.
I say waste because no matter how much we invest in Iraq, we've already ruined our chances of coming out as heroes. Over 90% of Iraqis have unfavorable opinions of the US, and just ask the rest of the Middle East how they feel about us -- and the percentatge is even higher.
Another Bush term will mean further separation from European allies -- many here in the US just don't understand that a global war on terror requires global allies. How can you fight a war that spans continents if everyone -- EVERYONE except Britain and (lmao) Poland are your allies? You can't -- you end up bearing an unimaginable burden, and you appear weak to the rest of the world -- to you allies and to your enemies.
What the Bush Administration did was as Kerry rightfully put it -- a colossal error in judgment. He has stretched our forces so thin we're pulling troops out of the DMZ, the zone that divides a democratic South Korea and the now nuclear-capable North Korea. We're trying to piece together the mess in Iraq while Iran continues to expand its uranium enriching process.
And while we continue to waste resources in Iraq, domestic spending will continue to decline, and our families will continue to struggle. Bush's tax cut plan is a joke -- if anyone cares to look at that plan closely, I can't believe anyone who's not making more than $200k is supporting it. It's tax cuts like that that are growing the gap between the haves and the have-nots -- and it's only going to get worse under another 4 yrs. of Bush.
Kerry understands that we need the rest of the world to end the Iraqi war. He understands that the greatest asset this country has is in its hard-working middle class -- and he rightfully shifts the tax cuts to help them. The rich are just fine as they are. Most importantly, he has the judgment and careful thinking of a true president. It's one thing to be defiant, it's another to be stubborn and "steadfast" in the face of truth. Bush just doesn't get it -- he thinks all is fine. Well, when you tell Russert in an interview that you rely on your cabinet members for "objective" news and that you never read the newspapers -- well, you're no president of the people -- you're a president beholden to your own agenda. In an ironic way, Bush is Sadaam of another sort -- just as Sadaam was often told his military was falsely strong and loyal, Bush seems to think his GOP powerhouse and the American people love him.
Well, he's in for a rude awakening when he wakes up on Nov. 3. I am confident the American will see past the GOP's scare tactics and spin of the truth -- just turn on your TV to PBS and watch the real news, heck, even turn on BBC -- the reality is not covered by MSNBC or ABC -- the real media is in the independent press.
Don't be fooled by Bush and his distortions. This election should not be as close as it is. All that proves is how well the GOP controls the media casual Americans watch everyday.
Vote on Nov. 2 for change. Vote Kerry-Edwards.[/quote]
[/quote]
On the real tip. If there was a smilyface with a tear going down one cheek (like the Native American in the 1970's anti-litter TV campaign), I'd SOOO use it right now.
The hardest thing for me to do this year has been to engage in discourse with pro-Bush people. Not because they won't talk (most will), and not because I won't talk civily (I can from time to time).
The way Americans are taught to engage in political discourse is abysmal. We are supposed to talk over eahc other, not listen to each other's comments; we are, in effect, supposed to mimic Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala (sp?) from Crossfire.
Civily discussing ideas is as dead as $50 MSRP to most of you all. The hardest part for me is restricting my gut instinct to behave like such a mongoloid, and instead respect others' opinions.
I did get to see Michael Moore speak on campus yesterday; he's very motivating, but he's no different than Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh - just an attack dog and spinmeister.
5 more days.
myke.
You don't take US troops -- sons, daughters, fathers of families -- and rush into war with bad intelligence, no post-war plan, and when it was apparent most of your key allies were obviously against you.
Sure, we haven't lost nearly as many troops in Iraq as we did in 'Nam, but make no mistake, the Iraqi war will be remembered in American history as the 'Nam of the new generation. What Bush has created in Iraq is nothing short of a foreign affairs nightmare -- a quagmire that's sure to last for at least another (as Bush's own generals have said) five to ten years.
Re: the draft -- though Bush denies he'll institute it, we essentially have a "back-door" draft going on right now. Who do you think goes to war as families get pinched by this ever-dismal economy. As Bush's so-called tax cuts continue to strain middle class Americans, who's kids do you think end up going to war? It's not the wealthiest 1% of America's parents whose sending kids over. Draft or no draft, the US will need FAR MORE troops to get the job done in Iraq -- if we don't increase troop presence, Iraq will take longer than five years, and that, my friends, is a quagmire we don't want to be in -- democrat or republican.
Fact is Bush, IMO, will offer "more of the same." He's pretty much said exactly that on his campaign trail. What has he said that makes you think he's going to change his policy? He continues to say Kerry can't get the support of allies -- no offense, Mr. President, but Mr. Kerry has a far better chance of getting any internation support than you ever will.
What I like about Kerry is that he understands not just warfare, but the consequences of war. What the heck are we taught all the time in English, anyways? Haven't we read the books by Hemingway, the poetry of Crane, and the warnings by Faulkner? War is always the "LAST RESORT," and whether you support Bush or not, you can't look me in the eye and say we went into Iraq as a "last resort" -- we never gave the weapons inspections team a fair chance, we never even bothered to look at the intelligence from UN nations -- Bush and his team sold us his war, and now, we're all paying the price -- all $200 billion of it -- in lives, resources, and waste.
I say waste because no matter how much we invest in Iraq, we've already ruined our chances of coming out as heroes. Over 90% of Iraqis have unfavorable opinions of the US, and just ask the rest of the Middle East how they feel about us -- and the percentatge is even higher.
Another Bush term will mean further separation from European allies -- many here in the US just don't understand that a global war on terror requires global allies. How can you fight a war that spans continents if everyone -- EVERYONE except Britain and (lmao) Poland are your allies? You can't -- you end up bearing an unimaginable burden, and you appear weak to the rest of the world -- to you allies and to your enemies.
What the Bush Administration did was as Kerry rightfully put it -- a colossal error in judgment. He has stretched our forces so thin we're pulling troops out of the DMZ, the zone that divides a democratic South Korea and the now nuclear-capable North Korea. We're trying to piece together the mess in Iraq while Iran continues to expand its uranium enriching process.
And while we continue to waste resources in Iraq, domestic spending will continue to decline, and our families will continue to struggle. Bush's tax cut plan is a joke -- if anyone cares to look at that plan closely, I can't believe anyone who's not making more than $200k is supporting it. It's tax cuts like that that are growing the gap between the haves and the have-nots -- and it's only going to get worse under another 4 yrs. of Bush.
Kerry understands that we need the rest of the world to end the Iraqi war. He understands that the greatest asset this country has is in its hard-working middle class -- and he rightfully shifts the tax cuts to help them. The rich are just fine as they are. Most importantly, he has the judgment and careful thinking of a true president. It's one thing to be defiant, it's another to be stubborn and "steadfast" in the face of truth. Bush just doesn't get it -- he thinks all is fine. Well, when you tell Russert in an interview that you rely on your cabinet members for "objective" news and that you never read the newspapers -- well, you're no president of the people -- you're a president beholden to your own agenda. In an ironic way, Bush is Sadaam of another sort -- just as Sadaam was often told his military was falsely strong and loyal, Bush seems to think his GOP powerhouse and the American people love him.
Well, he's in for a rude awakening when he wakes up on Nov. 3. I am confident the American will see past the GOP's scare tactics and spin of the truth -- just turn on your TV to PBS and watch the real news, heck, even turn on BBC -- the reality is not covered by MSNBC or ABC -- the real media is in the independent press.
Don't be fooled by Bush and his distortions. This election should not be as close as it is. All that proves is how well the GOP controls the media casual Americans watch everyday.
Vote on Nov. 2 for change. Vote Kerry-Edwards.[/quote]
[/quote]On the real tip. If there was a smilyface with a tear going down one cheek (like the Native American in the 1970's anti-litter TV campaign), I'd SOOO use it right now.
The hardest thing for me to do this year has been to engage in discourse with pro-Bush people. Not because they won't talk (most will), and not because I won't talk civily (I can from time to time).
The way Americans are taught to engage in political discourse is abysmal. We are supposed to talk over eahc other, not listen to each other's comments; we are, in effect, supposed to mimic Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala (sp?) from Crossfire.
Civily discussing ideas is as dead as $50 MSRP to most of you all. The hardest part for me is restricting my gut instinct to behave like such a mongoloid, and instead respect others' opinions.
I did get to see Michael Moore speak on campus yesterday; he's very motivating, but he's no different than Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh - just an attack dog and spinmeister.
5 more days.
myke.
pfunkpearl
CAGiversary!
[quote name='WarrenGekko']To me, both candidates are the same when it comes to the only topic that I will use when I vote for the president (Security). They have both said the same thing. So, it has been extremely difficult for me to choose one over the other. One day, I am leaning toward Bush because I know his track record. He will attack terrorists. No doubt. Since Kerry has not been president I don't know what he would have actually would have done.
However, the next day, I start leaning toward Kerry because Bush's perception in our country and around the world (Right or wrong) is that the US will not cooperate with anyone and will do whatever it wants. (Perception is reality). And I truly believe that ALL countries are responsible for the war on terror and should stop RELYING on the US to fix everything than bitch when they don't like something. We don't need Monday morning quarterback nations.
So, I am still on the fence[/quote]
He attacks the wrong people improperly...like a commando if bush is re-elected I can see more and more countries turning their back on us with every new invasion he plans. We're a super power....one of the last...but at this rate we won't be for long...we need other countries support as much as we all wanna be cowboys...defeating bush won't be enough..his administration stretches through the congress and senate....be sure to vote for senators and congressman...the conservative bigots run this country...clear channel is an extreme conservative coperation that owns almost half of the media in this country...why do you think stern got booted? For his vulgarty? NO! For his anti bush statements...this is a democracy...so get out there and do the right thing..
bush..
However, the next day, I start leaning toward Kerry because Bush's perception in our country and around the world (Right or wrong) is that the US will not cooperate with anyone and will do whatever it wants. (Perception is reality). And I truly believe that ALL countries are responsible for the war on terror and should stop RELYING on the US to fix everything than bitch when they don't like something. We don't need Monday morning quarterback nations.
So, I am still on the fence[/quote]
He attacks the wrong people improperly...like a commando if bush is re-elected I can see more and more countries turning their back on us with every new invasion he plans. We're a super power....one of the last...but at this rate we won't be for long...we need other countries support as much as we all wanna be cowboys...defeating bush won't be enough..his administration stretches through the congress and senate....be sure to vote for senators and congressman...the conservative bigots run this country...clear channel is an extreme conservative coperation that owns almost half of the media in this country...why do you think stern got booted? For his vulgarty? NO! For his anti bush statements...this is a democracy...so get out there and do the right thing..
bush..
pfunkpearl
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Ruined'][quote name='CaptainObviousXl'][quote name='DangerDave']I actually have a opinion on this one, so I'm going to vote. I'm flaberghasted that Kerry is winning on this site. Democrats have always been the big spenders and big taxers. I want to save money for video games. Still, please guys, go out and vote. I don't know the percentages but I know they are pretty low for 18 to around 25 year olds.[/quote]
i though this was pretty funny to. He obviously doesnt know his politics.
Democrats- liberal, tax rich, tax cut poor
Republicans- conservative, tax poor, Tax cut poor[/quote]
Next time you want to discuss this, you should mention that 80% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 20% of income earners. Over 96% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners - the poor pay little to no taxes! So cutting taxes for the "rich" makes the most sense, because they are actually paying significant taxes!
The original poster was also right, democrats are known for raising taxes and using the gained taxpayer money to foster their "programs" while republicans are known for cutting taxes. Democrats are also known for giving bonuses/handouts to the poor, perhaps that is what you were thinking when you were talking about tax cuts for the poor (can't really cut taxes when they pay little to none).[/quote]
Obviously something is wrong with bushes math since he took a national surplus of 4 billion to negative 7 billion....Bigot conservatives obviously hate anyone that's not in their tax bracket...what's wrong with helping the disadvantage..
Another point is that the bigots want to ban abortion...guess who needs abortions..the poorest people...then when they have the child the government won't help..talk about contradiction..why doesn't bush adopt some of the unwanted screwed children that he disapproves of aborting..
i though this was pretty funny to. He obviously doesnt know his politics.
Democrats- liberal, tax rich, tax cut poor
Republicans- conservative, tax poor, Tax cut poor[/quote]
Next time you want to discuss this, you should mention that 80% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 20% of income earners. Over 96% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners - the poor pay little to no taxes! So cutting taxes for the "rich" makes the most sense, because they are actually paying significant taxes!
The original poster was also right, democrats are known for raising taxes and using the gained taxpayer money to foster their "programs" while republicans are known for cutting taxes. Democrats are also known for giving bonuses/handouts to the poor, perhaps that is what you were thinking when you were talking about tax cuts for the poor (can't really cut taxes when they pay little to none).[/quote]
Obviously something is wrong with bushes math since he took a national surplus of 4 billion to negative 7 billion....Bigot conservatives obviously hate anyone that's not in their tax bracket...what's wrong with helping the disadvantage..
Another point is that the bigots want to ban abortion...guess who needs abortions..the poorest people...then when they have the child the government won't help..talk about contradiction..why doesn't bush adopt some of the unwanted screwed children that he disapproves of aborting..
Do you know what a bigot is?
For the uniformed: bigot is a noun, meaning obstinate believer who is intolerant of others.
From The American Century Dictionary.
Using the word BIGOT had NO value for Republicans.... this is an uniformed (and at least through you) a STEREOTYPE you are now giving to Republicans.
I do not really consider myself to be a Republican...When it comes to many ideas, I am inbetween sides (as far as a Conservative view, and a liberal view)...I am in no way a liberal...but I am also not completely conservative.
I would say I am a little more inclined to vote Republican with MOST elections/matters, but I am not necessarily a Republican.
Anyone can be a bigot...Democrats can be bigots.
I can see where you are coming from, but that is a terrible label to give them.
As far as people calling democrats LIBERAL.....a liberal viewpoint is the far left of the Democrat/Republican showdown, whereas conservative would be the far right.
When someone is EXTREMELY democratic, they are generally labeled as a liberal. This is an ACCEPTABLE viewpoint.
Anyone who stands firmly on the democratic side IS A LIBERAL...just as anyone firmly on the Republican side is a conservative (though the term is heard less).
Sorry, just wanted to clear things up.
For the uniformed: bigot is a noun, meaning obstinate believer who is intolerant of others.
From The American Century Dictionary.
Using the word BIGOT had NO value for Republicans.... this is an uniformed (and at least through you) a STEREOTYPE you are now giving to Republicans.
I do not really consider myself to be a Republican...When it comes to many ideas, I am inbetween sides (as far as a Conservative view, and a liberal view)...I am in no way a liberal...but I am also not completely conservative.
I would say I am a little more inclined to vote Republican with MOST elections/matters, but I am not necessarily a Republican.
Anyone can be a bigot...Democrats can be bigots.
I can see where you are coming from, but that is a terrible label to give them.
As far as people calling democrats LIBERAL.....a liberal viewpoint is the far left of the Democrat/Republican showdown, whereas conservative would be the far right.
When someone is EXTREMELY democratic, they are generally labeled as a liberal. This is an ACCEPTABLE viewpoint.
Anyone who stands firmly on the democratic side IS A LIBERAL...just as anyone firmly on the Republican side is a conservative (though the term is heard less).
Sorry, just wanted to clear things up.
WarrenGekko
CAGiversary!
[quote name='pfunkpearl'][quote name='WarrenGekko']To me, both candidates are the same when it comes to the only topic that I will use when I vote for the president (Security). They have both said the same thing. So, it has been extremely difficult for me to choose one over the other. One day, I am leaning toward Bush because I know his track record. He will attack terrorists. No doubt. Since Kerry has not been president I don't know what he would have actually would have done.
However, the next day, I start leaning toward Kerry because Bush's perception in our country and around the world (Right or wrong) is that the US will not cooperate with anyone and will do whatever it wants. (Perception is reality). And I truly believe that ALL countries are responsible for the war on terror and should stop RELYING on the US to fix everything than bitch when they don't like something. We don't need Monday morning quarterback nations.
So, I am still on the fence[/quote]
He attacks the wrong people improperly...like a commando if bush is re-elected I can see more and more countries turning their back on us with every new invasion he plans. We're a super power....one of the last...but at this rate we won't be for long...we need other countries support as much as we all wanna be cowboys...defeating bush won't be enough..his administration stretches through the congress and senate....be sure to vote for senators and congressman...the conservative bigots run this country...clear channel is an extreme conservative coperation that owns almost half of the media in this country...why do you think stern got booted? For his vulgarty? NO! For his anti bush statements...this is a democracy...so get out there and do the right thing..shaq-fu bush..[/quote]
That really didn't help me at all. I'm am in favor of protecting this country. Remember, I said that security is my number one concern. Kerry and Bush have both said that they are going to kill the terrorists.
Plus I don't care about Howard Stern that has nothing to do with this.
However, the next day, I start leaning toward Kerry because Bush's perception in our country and around the world (Right or wrong) is that the US will not cooperate with anyone and will do whatever it wants. (Perception is reality). And I truly believe that ALL countries are responsible for the war on terror and should stop RELYING on the US to fix everything than bitch when they don't like something. We don't need Monday morning quarterback nations.
So, I am still on the fence[/quote]
He attacks the wrong people improperly...like a commando if bush is re-elected I can see more and more countries turning their back on us with every new invasion he plans. We're a super power....one of the last...but at this rate we won't be for long...we need other countries support as much as we all wanna be cowboys...defeating bush won't be enough..his administration stretches through the congress and senate....be sure to vote for senators and congressman...the conservative bigots run this country...clear channel is an extreme conservative coperation that owns almost half of the media in this country...why do you think stern got booted? For his vulgarty? NO! For his anti bush statements...this is a democracy...so get out there and do the right thing..shaq-fu bush..[/quote]
That really didn't help me at all. I'm am in favor of protecting this country. Remember, I said that security is my number one concern. Kerry and Bush have both said that they are going to kill the terrorists.
Plus I don't care about Howard Stern that has nothing to do with this.
WarrenGekko
CAGiversary!
[quote name='pfunkpearl'][quote name='Ruined'][quote name='CaptainObviousXl'][quote name='DangerDave']I actually have a opinion on this one, so I'm going to vote. I'm flaberghasted that Kerry is winning on this site. Democrats have always been the big spenders and big taxers. I want to save money for video games. Still, please guys, go out and vote. I don't know the percentages but I know they are pretty low for 18 to around 25 year olds.[/quote]
i though this was pretty funny to. He obviously doesnt know his politics.
Democrats- liberal, tax rich, tax cut poor
Republicans- conservative, tax poor, Tax cut poor[/quote]
Next time you want to discuss this, you should mention that 80% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 20% of income earners. Over 96% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners - the poor pay little to no taxes! So cutting taxes for the "rich" makes the most sense, because they are actually paying significant taxes!
The original poster was also right, democrats are known for raising taxes and using the gained taxpayer money to foster their "programs" while republicans are known for cutting taxes. Democrats are also known for giving bonuses/handouts to the poor, perhaps that is what you were thinking when you were talking about tax cuts for the poor (can't really cut taxes when they pay little to none).[/quote]
Obviously something is wrong with bushes math since he took a national surplus of 4 billion to negative 7 billion....Bigot conservatives obviously hate anyone that's not in their tax bracket...what's wrong with helping the disadvantage..
Another point is that the bigots want to ban abortion...guess who needs abortions..the poorest people...then when they have the child the government won't help..talk about contradiction..why doesn't bush adopt some of the unwanted screwed children that he disapproves of aborting..[/quote]
Whoa! Guess who needs abortions? Poor people? What is that?
i though this was pretty funny to. He obviously doesnt know his politics.
Democrats- liberal, tax rich, tax cut poor
Republicans- conservative, tax poor, Tax cut poor[/quote]
Next time you want to discuss this, you should mention that 80% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 20% of income earners. Over 96% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners - the poor pay little to no taxes! So cutting taxes for the "rich" makes the most sense, because they are actually paying significant taxes!
The original poster was also right, democrats are known for raising taxes and using the gained taxpayer money to foster their "programs" while republicans are known for cutting taxes. Democrats are also known for giving bonuses/handouts to the poor, perhaps that is what you were thinking when you were talking about tax cuts for the poor (can't really cut taxes when they pay little to none).[/quote]
Obviously something is wrong with bushes math since he took a national surplus of 4 billion to negative 7 billion....Bigot conservatives obviously hate anyone that's not in their tax bracket...what's wrong with helping the disadvantage..
Another point is that the bigots want to ban abortion...guess who needs abortions..the poorest people...then when they have the child the government won't help..talk about contradiction..why doesn't bush adopt some of the unwanted screwed children that he disapproves of aborting..[/quote]
Whoa! Guess who needs abortions? Poor people? What is that?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='chrisp450']Sorry, just wanted to clear things up.[/quote]
I want to make world peace happen, shecky; I'm doing as good a job of that as you did clear things up.
What in the world did you make clear? The demarcations between Republican and Conservative, Democrat and Liberal are far too muddled in our society. Many attribute them to mean the same thing. Others argue that Republican and Democrat are simply affiliations, and the Conservative/Liberal labels tend to indicate individual politicians' ideological variations within their own party. Still more people consider this to exist at a mostly moral level; the point is, the words are used far too frequently (and, more importantly, far too poorly far too frequently) that the words have multiple readily-available permutations. It's nice of you to pretend otherwise, but really now: you failed to convince me that you had anything of value to say.
BTW, you are a Republican until further review. What kind of person claims to be (1) a moderate, (2) in some ways conservative, and (3) not at all liberal? I'd like to hear you clarify this; I'm not trolling, I'm curious to hear what cognitive dissonance mechanisms you break out to rectify these impossibilities. You remind me of those people who smugly claim that Kerry is (1) inconsistent in his positions and (2) the most liberal member of congress; for (2) to be true, a necessary satisfying condition is that (1) is false (therefore, for (1) to be true, (2) must be false).
Anyway, thank you for attempting to rectify our national political label problem; it's a shame that you did such a poor job.
myke.
I want to make world peace happen, shecky; I'm doing as good a job of that as you did clear things up.
What in the world did you make clear? The demarcations between Republican and Conservative, Democrat and Liberal are far too muddled in our society. Many attribute them to mean the same thing. Others argue that Republican and Democrat are simply affiliations, and the Conservative/Liberal labels tend to indicate individual politicians' ideological variations within their own party. Still more people consider this to exist at a mostly moral level; the point is, the words are used far too frequently (and, more importantly, far too poorly far too frequently) that the words have multiple readily-available permutations. It's nice of you to pretend otherwise, but really now: you failed to convince me that you had anything of value to say.
BTW, you are a Republican until further review. What kind of person claims to be (1) a moderate, (2) in some ways conservative, and (3) not at all liberal? I'd like to hear you clarify this; I'm not trolling, I'm curious to hear what cognitive dissonance mechanisms you break out to rectify these impossibilities. You remind me of those people who smugly claim that Kerry is (1) inconsistent in his positions and (2) the most liberal member of congress; for (2) to be true, a necessary satisfying condition is that (1) is false (therefore, for (1) to be true, (2) must be false).
Anyway, thank you for attempting to rectify our national political label problem; it's a shame that you did such a poor job.
myke.
PhrostByte
CAG Newbie
I'm not voting? Why? Because I live in Maryland, a state that Kerry is going to win.
If I had to vote, it would be for "the guy that Bush is running against". Bush is the reason I got arrested. His Patriot Act gives mail inspectors the right to open up the mail of any random citizen, FOR NO REASON AT ALL. THEY DO NOT NEED ANY SUSPICION. To me, this just seems unconstitutional, and quiet frankly... scary. I did commit a crime, true, but I think the state commited a far greater crime by blatantly invading my privacy. What's next? Cops coming into my home for no reason and going through all my crap? OH WAIT, THAT ALREADY HAPPENED! I left the USSR to get away from that very same situation... but what goes around comes around my niqqa.
If I had to vote, it would be for "the guy that Bush is running against". Bush is the reason I got arrested. His Patriot Act gives mail inspectors the right to open up the mail of any random citizen, FOR NO REASON AT ALL. THEY DO NOT NEED ANY SUSPICION. To me, this just seems unconstitutional, and quiet frankly... scary. I did commit a crime, true, but I think the state commited a far greater crime by blatantly invading my privacy. What's next? Cops coming into my home for no reason and going through all my crap? OH WAIT, THAT ALREADY HAPPENED! I left the USSR to get away from that very same situation... but what goes around comes around my niqqa.
pfunkpearl
CAGiversary!
well you should vote if you can regardless of who you think will win your state..i'm in the hick state of texas and they "love them some Dubya..." and obviously I'm voting against him....
So what ddi u do phrost?
So what ddi u do phrost?
WarrenGekko
CAGiversary!
[quote name='phrostbyte']I'm not voting? Why? Because I live in Maryland, a state that Kerry is going to win.
If I had to vote, it would be for "the guy that Bush is running against". Bush is the reason I got arrested. His Patriot Act gives mail inspectors the right to open up the mail of any random citizen, FOR NO REASON AT ALL. THEY DO NOT NEED ANY SUSPICION. To me, this just seems unconstitutional, and quiet frankly... scary. I did commit a crime, true, but I think the state commited a far greater crime by blatantly invading my privacy. What's next? Cops coming into my home for no reason and going through all my crap? OH WAIT, THAT ALREADY HAPPENED! I left the USSR to get away from that very same situation... but what goes around comes around my niqqa.[/quote]
Nice. You left Russia to commit crimes here in America then you bitch. Looks like you got what you deserved.
If I had to vote, it would be for "the guy that Bush is running against". Bush is the reason I got arrested. His Patriot Act gives mail inspectors the right to open up the mail of any random citizen, FOR NO REASON AT ALL. THEY DO NOT NEED ANY SUSPICION. To me, this just seems unconstitutional, and quiet frankly... scary. I did commit a crime, true, but I think the state commited a far greater crime by blatantly invading my privacy. What's next? Cops coming into my home for no reason and going through all my crap? OH WAIT, THAT ALREADY HAPPENED! I left the USSR to get away from that very same situation... but what goes around comes around my niqqa.[/quote]
Nice. You left Russia to commit crimes here in America then you bitch. Looks like you got what you deserved.
WarrenGekko
CAGiversary!
[quote name='WarrenGekko'][quote name='phrostbyte']I'm not voting? Why? Because I live in Maryland, a state that Kerry is going to win.
If I had to vote, it would be for "the guy that Bush is running against". Bush is the reason I got arrested. His Patriot Act gives mail inspectors the right to open up the mail of any random citizen, FOR NO REASON AT ALL. THEY DO NOT NEED ANY SUSPICION. To me, this just seems unconstitutional, and quiet frankly... scary. I did commit a crime, true, but I think the state commited a far greater crime by blatantly invading my privacy. What's next? Cops coming into my home for no reason and going through all my crap? OH WAIT, THAT ALREADY HAPPENED! I left the USSR to get away from that very same situation... but what goes around comes around my niqqa.[/quote]
Nice. You left Russia to commit crimes here in America then you bitch. Looks like the Patriot Act worked like it was intended and you got what you deserved.[/quote]
If I had to vote, it would be for "the guy that Bush is running against". Bush is the reason I got arrested. His Patriot Act gives mail inspectors the right to open up the mail of any random citizen, FOR NO REASON AT ALL. THEY DO NOT NEED ANY SUSPICION. To me, this just seems unconstitutional, and quiet frankly... scary. I did commit a crime, true, but I think the state commited a far greater crime by blatantly invading my privacy. What's next? Cops coming into my home for no reason and going through all my crap? OH WAIT, THAT ALREADY HAPPENED! I left the USSR to get away from that very same situation... but what goes around comes around my niqqa.[/quote]
Nice. You left Russia to commit crimes here in America then you bitch. Looks like the Patriot Act worked like it was intended and you got what you deserved.[/quote]
PhrostByte
CAG Newbie
I got my friend from overseas to send me LCD monitors... except... scratch the C and replace with ya...
pfunkpearl
CAGiversary!
Directly from BinLaden's speech:
"We have not found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half of which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.
Our experience with them is lengthy and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth."
To read the full transcript that makes no mention of KErry...read here...
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
bush has failed...
"We have not found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half of which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.
Our experience with them is lengthy and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth."
To read the full transcript that makes no mention of KErry...read here...
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
bush has failed...
[quote name='mykevermin'][quote name='chrisp450']Sorry, just wanted to clear things up.[/quote]
I want to make world peace happen, shecky; I'm doing as good a job of that as you did clear things up.
What in the world did you make clear? The demarcations between Republican and Conservative, Democrat and Liberal are far too muddled in our society. Many attribute them to mean the same thing. Others argue that Republican and Democrat are simply affiliations, and the Conservative/Liberal labels tend to indicate individual politicians' ideological variations within their own party. Still more people consider this to exist at a mostly moral level; the point is, the words are used far too frequently (and, more importantly, far too poorly far too frequently) that the words have multiple readily-available permutations. It's nice of you to pretend otherwise, but really now: you failed to convince me that you had anything of value to say.
BTW, you are a Republican until further review. What kind of person claims to be (1) a moderate, (2) in some ways conservative, and (3) not at all liberal? I'd like to hear you clarify this; I'm not trolling, I'm curious to hear what cognitive dissonance mechanisms you break out to rectify these impossibilities. You remind me of those people who smugly claim that Kerry is (1) inconsistent in his positions and (2) the most liberal member of congress; for (2) to be true, a necessary satisfying condition is that (1) is false (therefore, for (1) to be true, (2) must be false).
Anyway, thank you for attempting to rectify our national political label problem; it's a shame that you did such a poor job.
myke.[/quote]
Well Myke (is that the real spelling? I think your parentsed up)...all I was trying to clear up was the defenition of a bigot...which is a completely UNFAIR way to describe Republicans.
When I was saying I am in NO WAY liberal, I guess I worded that poorly. What I meant was that I am NOT a liberal, though I still have some points of view that would agree with a liberal way of thinking (on some political issues). I am also NOT one of the people who would claim Kerry to be ULTRA-LIBERAL. I disagree with this tag for him. If you want to see a LIBERAL, all you would have to do is look to our former Senator Paul Wellstone (R.I.P.). I admire the man for what he stood for, but for me he was WAY too liberal. I could never vote for the man.
If you missed it, I also said that I am SLIGHTLY more Republican than Democratic....you must have overlooked that.
I am not here to argue politics, I just thought the use of the word BIGOT was completely unjust. When I was trying to explain what it meant to be a liberal, I did this SIMPLY because people were complaining that the word liberal is being associated with Democrats (which is a FAIR use of the word...ALTHOUGH it may not describe ALL democrats, for the most part it is a fair use of the word....AS would conservative for Republicans.)
I want to make world peace happen, shecky; I'm doing as good a job of that as you did clear things up.
What in the world did you make clear? The demarcations between Republican and Conservative, Democrat and Liberal are far too muddled in our society. Many attribute them to mean the same thing. Others argue that Republican and Democrat are simply affiliations, and the Conservative/Liberal labels tend to indicate individual politicians' ideological variations within their own party. Still more people consider this to exist at a mostly moral level; the point is, the words are used far too frequently (and, more importantly, far too poorly far too frequently) that the words have multiple readily-available permutations. It's nice of you to pretend otherwise, but really now: you failed to convince me that you had anything of value to say.
BTW, you are a Republican until further review. What kind of person claims to be (1) a moderate, (2) in some ways conservative, and (3) not at all liberal? I'd like to hear you clarify this; I'm not trolling, I'm curious to hear what cognitive dissonance mechanisms you break out to rectify these impossibilities. You remind me of those people who smugly claim that Kerry is (1) inconsistent in his positions and (2) the most liberal member of congress; for (2) to be true, a necessary satisfying condition is that (1) is false (therefore, for (1) to be true, (2) must be false).
Anyway, thank you for attempting to rectify our national political label problem; it's a shame that you did such a poor job.
myke.[/quote]
Well Myke (is that the real spelling? I think your parents
ed up)...all I was trying to clear up was the defenition of a bigot...which is a completely UNFAIR way to describe Republicans.When I was saying I am in NO WAY liberal, I guess I worded that poorly. What I meant was that I am NOT a liberal, though I still have some points of view that would agree with a liberal way of thinking (on some political issues). I am also NOT one of the people who would claim Kerry to be ULTRA-LIBERAL. I disagree with this tag for him. If you want to see a LIBERAL, all you would have to do is look to our former Senator Paul Wellstone (R.I.P.). I admire the man for what he stood for, but for me he was WAY too liberal. I could never vote for the man.
If you missed it, I also said that I am SLIGHTLY more Republican than Democratic....you must have overlooked that.
I am not here to argue politics, I just thought the use of the word BIGOT was completely unjust. When I was trying to explain what it meant to be a liberal, I did this SIMPLY because people were complaining that the word liberal is being associated with Democrats (which is a FAIR use of the word...ALTHOUGH it may not describe ALL democrats, for the most part it is a fair use of the word....AS would conservative for Republicans.)
WarrenGekko
CAGiversary!
[quote name='pfunkpearl']Directly from BinLaden's speech:
"We have not found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half of which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.
Our experience with them is lengthy and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth."
To read the full transcript that makes no mention of KErry...read here...
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
bush has failed...[/quote]
Since when do we judge how presidents perform in office froming terrorists like Osama. Osama is an idiot loser that has no credability and is evil incarnate. I can care less about he thinks Bush or Kerry. In fact, if Osama were to "instruct" the US to vote for one candidate or the other, I would vote for the one he did not endorse. DO NOT MAKE YOUR DECISION ON OSAMA QUOTES
"We have not found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half of which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.
Our experience with them is lengthy and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth."
To read the full transcript that makes no mention of KErry...read here...
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
bush has failed...[/quote]
Since when do we judge how presidents perform in office from
ing terrorists like Osama. Osama is an idiot loser that has no credability and is evil incarnate. I can care less about he thinks Bush or Kerry. In fact, if Osama were to "instruct" the US to vote for one candidate or the other, I would vote for the one he did not endorse. DO NOT MAKE YOUR DECISION ON OSAMA QUOTES
CaptainObviousXl
CAGiversary!
well someone who makes 1,000,000s a year should have to pay a significant amount more than someone making 15,000. The idea of income taxes is to have it so people can pay what they can offord. Lets face it, right now the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting more poor, i dont think that cutting of taxes from the rich is gonna help this at all.
i like your sig funk
i like your sig funk
Mattiful-Joe
Henshin a go-go, baby!
[quote name='CaptainObviousXl']well someone who makes 1,000,000s a year should have to pay a significant amount more than someone making 15,000. The idea of income taxes is to have it so people can pay what they can offord. Lets face it, right now the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting more poor, i dont think that cutting of taxes from the rich is gonna help this at all.
i like your sig funk[/quote]
Exactly.
What Bush has done with his tax cuts is nothing short of an abomination. Ask any economist from one of the major institutions (MIT, Univ. of Chicago, Harvard, or Yale), and they're likely to explain to you that this idea of trickle-down economics doesn't work.
Another term for this is "Reagan-omics" -- the former president implemented a similar plan and that contributed to a serious economic recession during the tale end of a certain other Bush administration which cost him his job. Dubya's economic plan is nothing more than a straight mimickry of that policy -- the only difference? Reagan's administration and economic advisors were intelligent enough to make the tax cuts temporary. This Bush, on the other hand, intends to make these cuts permanent.
An editorial in Time Magazine remarked that such a move could be disasterous to the have-nots. The wealthy might pay more taxes, but really -- giving them more money doesn't mean they'll spend more. It's commonsense economics. An affluent person spending, say, $80,000 a year isn't suddenly going to spend $100,000 because Bush handed him a tax cut. Let's say he instead invests the dollars into the stock market -- would that be good for the middle or lower class? Nope. That money only help fatten the wallets of corporate America. So where's the trickle down? There isn't any. That's just the reality of this. Neither candidate is going to radically turn around this economy. But one thing's relatively certain: Bush is going to make his base, the rich, a whole lot richer.
Also, I want to bring up one more VERY important issue. Whoever is president for the next four years is likely to nominate the at least 3 supreme court judges. A Bush White House will likely mean reversals of some of the most important women's rights and civil rights cases of the past fifty years: Abortion, Affirmative Action, Gay rights. Think about what kind of America you want to live in and be passionate and personal about this election. It is and will be remembered in this nation as perhaps the MOST important election of our generation.
Do we want a president who deceives us for his personal agenda; a president willing to use scare tactics to win; a president that is beholden to corporate interests and fattening the wallets of CEOs; a president that stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the facts, and is simply unwilling to work with global allies to fight the global war on terror?
We need a president that will stand up to corporate loopholes and fight for the middle class American -- the backbone of this great country. We need a president that understands war must be a last resort, and fought only on the most solid and firm premises; we need a president that will lead not just America, but the world -- and be willing to shake hands and bring together allies toward a common and necessary effort. We need a president that understands a global war on terror requires global allies.
Bush promises "more of the same," and that just isn't enough. Don't forget everything that's happened in the news the past six months -- the prison abuse scandal, his own administration (Rumsfeld, Bremer, Powel) admitting a lack of troops and poor post-war planning, 300 tons of missing explosives, and finally, 1,000 and rising US casualties -- the majority after Bush's bombastic "mission accomplished" speech. We can't take more of the same for another four years. We need new direction, new leadership, and frankly, new thinking in the White House.
Vote for change on Nov. 2. Vote Kerry-Edwards.
i like your sig funk[/quote]
Exactly.
What Bush has done with his tax cuts is nothing short of an abomination. Ask any economist from one of the major institutions (MIT, Univ. of Chicago, Harvard, or Yale), and they're likely to explain to you that this idea of trickle-down economics doesn't work.
Another term for this is "Reagan-omics" -- the former president implemented a similar plan and that contributed to a serious economic recession during the tale end of a certain other Bush administration which cost him his job. Dubya's economic plan is nothing more than a straight mimickry of that policy -- the only difference? Reagan's administration and economic advisors were intelligent enough to make the tax cuts temporary. This Bush, on the other hand, intends to make these cuts permanent.
An editorial in Time Magazine remarked that such a move could be disasterous to the have-nots. The wealthy might pay more taxes, but really -- giving them more money doesn't mean they'll spend more. It's commonsense economics. An affluent person spending, say, $80,000 a year isn't suddenly going to spend $100,000 because Bush handed him a tax cut. Let's say he instead invests the dollars into the stock market -- would that be good for the middle or lower class? Nope. That money only help fatten the wallets of corporate America. So where's the trickle down? There isn't any. That's just the reality of this. Neither candidate is going to radically turn around this economy. But one thing's relatively certain: Bush is going to make his base, the rich, a whole lot richer.
Also, I want to bring up one more VERY important issue. Whoever is president for the next four years is likely to nominate the at least 3 supreme court judges. A Bush White House will likely mean reversals of some of the most important women's rights and civil rights cases of the past fifty years: Abortion, Affirmative Action, Gay rights. Think about what kind of America you want to live in and be passionate and personal about this election. It is and will be remembered in this nation as perhaps the MOST important election of our generation.
Do we want a president who deceives us for his personal agenda; a president willing to use scare tactics to win; a president that is beholden to corporate interests and fattening the wallets of CEOs; a president that stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the facts, and is simply unwilling to work with global allies to fight the global war on terror?
We need a president that will stand up to corporate loopholes and fight for the middle class American -- the backbone of this great country. We need a president that understands war must be a last resort, and fought only on the most solid and firm premises; we need a president that will lead not just America, but the world -- and be willing to shake hands and bring together allies toward a common and necessary effort. We need a president that understands a global war on terror requires global allies.
Bush promises "more of the same," and that just isn't enough. Don't forget everything that's happened in the news the past six months -- the prison abuse scandal, his own administration (Rumsfeld, Bremer, Powel) admitting a lack of troops and poor post-war planning, 300 tons of missing explosives, and finally, 1,000 and rising US casualties -- the majority after Bush's bombastic "mission accomplished" speech. We can't take more of the same for another four years. We need new direction, new leadership, and frankly, new thinking in the White House.
Vote for change on Nov. 2. Vote Kerry-Edwards.
pfunkpearl
CAGiversary!
[quote name='WarrenGekko'][quote name='pfunkpearl']Directly from BinLaden's speech:
"We have not found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half of which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.
Our experience with them is lengthy and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth."
To read the full transcript that makes no mention of KErry...read here...
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
bush has failed...[/quote]
Since when do we judge how presidents perform in office from shaq-fuing terrorists like Osama. Osama is an idiot loser that has no credability and is evil incarnate. I can care less about he thinks Bush or Kerry. In fact, if Osama were to "instruct" the US to vote for one candidate or the other, I would vote for the one he did not endorse. DO NOT MAKE YOUR DECISION ON OSAMA QUOTES[/quote]
I didn't make my chocie based on bin laden, I made up my mind over 4 years ago when I voted for gore...There are many reason's bin laden speech is important...the biggest reason is that he's still alive...good job on the war on terror dubya...
"We have not found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half of which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.
Our experience with them is lengthy and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth."
To read the full transcript that makes no mention of KErry...read here...
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
bush has failed...[/quote]
Since when do we judge how presidents perform in office from shaq-fuing terrorists like Osama. Osama is an idiot loser that has no credability and is evil incarnate. I can care less about he thinks Bush or Kerry. In fact, if Osama were to "instruct" the US to vote for one candidate or the other, I would vote for the one he did not endorse. DO NOT MAKE YOUR DECISION ON OSAMA QUOTES[/quote]
I didn't make my chocie based on bin laden, I made up my mind over 4 years ago when I voted for gore...There are many reason's bin laden speech is important...the biggest reason is that he's still alive...good job on the war on terror dubya...
ArthurDigbySellers
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
[quote name='pfunkpearl'][quote name='WarrenGekko'][quote name='pfunkpearl']Directly from BinLaden's speech:
"We have not found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half of which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.
Our experience with them is lengthy and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth."
To read the full transcript that makes no mention of KErry...read here...
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
bush has failed...[/quote]
Since when do we judge how presidents perform in office from shaq-fuing terrorists like Osama. Osama is an idiot loser that has no credability and is evil incarnate. I can care less about he thinks Bush or Kerry. In fact, if Osama were to "instruct" the US to vote for one candidate or the other, I would vote for the one he did not endorse. DO NOT MAKE YOUR DECISION ON OSAMA QUOTES[/quote]
I didn't make my chocie based on bin laden, I made up my mind over 4 years ago when I voted for gore...There are many reason's bin laden speech is important...the biggest reason is that he's still alive...good job on the war on terror dubya...[/quote]
C'mon guys, you have to remember that the war on terror is "hard work." Can't you just hear that whiney-ass Dubya voice?
"We have not found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half of which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.
Our experience with them is lengthy and both types are replete with those who are characterised by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth."
To read the full transcript that makes no mention of KErry...read here...
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
bush has failed...[/quote]
Since when do we judge how presidents perform in office from shaq-fuing terrorists like Osama. Osama is an idiot loser that has no credability and is evil incarnate. I can care less about he thinks Bush or Kerry. In fact, if Osama were to "instruct" the US to vote for one candidate or the other, I would vote for the one he did not endorse. DO NOT MAKE YOUR DECISION ON OSAMA QUOTES[/quote]
I didn't make my chocie based on bin laden, I made up my mind over 4 years ago when I voted for gore...There are many reason's bin laden speech is important...the biggest reason is that he's still alive...good job on the war on terror dubya...[/quote]
C'mon guys, you have to remember that the war on terror is "hard work." Can't you just hear that whiney-ass Dubya voice?
pfunkpearl
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Jaxcomet']I wouldn't be able to forgive myself if I voted for..............
Either of these two morons
I'm taking this one off..........Maybe in 2008[/quote]
I'm sorry but this is the most moronic thing...One of them has to win...you might as well vote for which ever one you hate less....because if you vote you at least did the minium you could do for your country...you are basically insulting all the people who vote to get the right to vote...all the people who died to get the right to vote...I think it's very lazy...
Either of these two morons
I'm taking this one off..........Maybe in 2008[/quote]
I'm sorry but this is the most moronic thing...One of them has to win...you might as well vote for which ever one you hate less....because if you vote you at least did the minium you could do for your country...you are basically insulting all the people who vote to get the right to vote...all the people who died to get the right to vote...I think it's very lazy...
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='pfunkpearl'][quote name='Jaxcomet']I wouldn't be able to forgive myself if I voted for..............
Either of these two morons
I'm taking this one off..........Maybe in 2008[/quote]
I'm sorry but this is the most moronic thing...One of them has to win...you might as well vote for which ever one you hate less....because if you vote you at least did the minium you could do for your country...you are basically insulting all the people who vote to get the right to vote...all the people who died to get the right to vote...I think it's very lazy...[/quote]
It is intellectually lazy to say that they are similar in ideas, and both of their plans 'suck.' People who flippantly say that amidst a refusal to vote, often have put very little, if not any, effort into finding information about the candidate's positions....they instead cover their own ass by saying that they both suck.
Chances are, they could not possibly propose a cogent argument about what policies of Bush and Kerry suck, and develop well thought out arguments about why they suck. Generalizations are easy. Coherence is much more difficult. If you're such a lazy that you can't learn the candidate's positions, then don't vote; just don't pretend that you are too high and mighty for the democratic process. Confortably admit that you are just a bastard.
Those who participate democratically, but do not like the two main candidates, will almost certainly find something amongst the third party candidates. Again, if you think third party candidates are a waste of a vote, you may be right. But it's your fault for reinforcing that by not voting.
myke.
Either of these two morons
I'm taking this one off..........Maybe in 2008[/quote]
I'm sorry but this is the most moronic thing...One of them has to win...you might as well vote for which ever one you hate less....because if you vote you at least did the minium you could do for your country...you are basically insulting all the people who vote to get the right to vote...all the people who died to get the right to vote...I think it's very lazy...[/quote]
It is intellectually lazy to say that they are similar in ideas, and both of their plans 'suck.' People who flippantly say that amidst a refusal to vote, often have put very little, if not any, effort into finding information about the candidate's positions....they instead cover their own ass by saying that they both suck.
Chances are, they could not possibly propose a cogent argument about what policies of Bush and Kerry suck, and develop well thought out arguments about why they suck. Generalizations are easy. Coherence is much more difficult. If you're such a lazy
that you can't learn the candidate's positions, then don't vote; just don't pretend that you are too high and mighty for the democratic process. Confortably admit that you are just a bastard. Those who participate democratically, but do not like the two main candidates, will almost certainly find something amongst the third party candidates. Again, if you think third party candidates are a waste of a vote, you may be right. But it's your fault for reinforcing that by not voting.
myke.
[quote name='mykevermin'][quote name='pfunkpearl'][quote name='Jaxcomet']I wouldn't be able to forgive myself if I voted for..............
Either of these two morons
I'm taking this one off..........Maybe in 2008[/quote]
I'm sorry but this is the most moronic thing...One of them has to win...you might as well vote for which ever one you hate less....because if you vote you at least did the minium you could do for your country...you are basically insulting all the people who vote to get the right to vote...all the people who died to get the right to vote...I think it's very lazy...[/quote]
It is intellectually lazy to say that they are similar in ideas, and both of their plans 'suck.' People who flippantly say that amidst a refusal to vote, often have put very little, if not any, effort into finding information about the candidate's positions....they instead cover their own ass by saying that they both suck.
Chances are, they could not possibly propose a cogent argument about what policies of Bush and Kerry suck, and develop well thought out arguments about why they suck. Generalizations are easy. Coherence is much more difficult. If you're such a lazy shaq-fu that you can't learn the candidate's positions, then don't vote; just don't pretend that you are too high and mighty for the democratic process. Confortably admit that you are just a bastard.
Those who participate democratically, but do not like the two main candidates, will almost certainly find something amongst the third party candidates. Again, if you think third party candidates are a waste of a vote, you may be right. But it's your fault for reinforcing that by not voting.
myke.[/quote]
I did end up voting do to some outside influences (certainly not this forum) but in the end it amounted to not much more than a coin flip.
I guess learning the so-called and ever changing "candidate's positions" via CNN and throught televised debates (which often border on comedy) may make you feel brilliantly informed.
Whatever makes you happy I suppose......
Either of these two morons
I'm taking this one off..........Maybe in 2008[/quote]
I'm sorry but this is the most moronic thing...One of them has to win...you might as well vote for which ever one you hate less....because if you vote you at least did the minium you could do for your country...you are basically insulting all the people who vote to get the right to vote...all the people who died to get the right to vote...I think it's very lazy...[/quote]
It is intellectually lazy to say that they are similar in ideas, and both of their plans 'suck.' People who flippantly say that amidst a refusal to vote, often have put very little, if not any, effort into finding information about the candidate's positions....they instead cover their own ass by saying that they both suck.
Chances are, they could not possibly propose a cogent argument about what policies of Bush and Kerry suck, and develop well thought out arguments about why they suck. Generalizations are easy. Coherence is much more difficult. If you're such a lazy shaq-fu that you can't learn the candidate's positions, then don't vote; just don't pretend that you are too high and mighty for the democratic process. Confortably admit that you are just a bastard.
Those who participate democratically, but do not like the two main candidates, will almost certainly find something amongst the third party candidates. Again, if you think third party candidates are a waste of a vote, you may be right. But it's your fault for reinforcing that by not voting.
myke.[/quote]
I did end up voting do to some outside influences (certainly not this forum) but in the end it amounted to not much more than a coin flip.
I guess learning the so-called and ever changing "candidate's positions" via CNN and throught televised debates (which often border on comedy) may make you feel brilliantly informed.
Whatever makes you happy I suppose......
WarrenGekko
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Jaxcomet'][quote name='mykevermin'][quote name='pfunkpearl'][quote name='Jaxcomet']I wouldn't be able to forgive myself if I voted for..............
Either of these two morons
I'm taking this one off..........Maybe in 2008[/quote]
I'm sorry but this is the most moronic thing...One of them has to win...you might as well vote for which ever one you hate less....because if you vote you at least did the minium you could do for your country...you are basically insulting all the people who vote to get the right to vote...all the people who died to get the right to vote...I think it's very lazy...[/quote]
It is intellectually lazy to say that they are similar in ideas, and both of their plans 'suck.' People who flippantly say that amidst a refusal to vote, often have put very little, if not any, effort into finding information about the candidate's positions....they instead cover their own ass by saying that they both suck.
Chances are, they could not possibly propose a cogent argument about what policies of Bush and Kerry suck, and develop well thought out arguments about why they suck. Generalizations are easy. Coherence is much more difficult. If you're such a lazy shaq-fu that you can't learn the candidate's positions, then don't vote; just don't pretend that you are too high and mighty for the democratic process. Confortably admit that you are just a bastard.
Those who participate democratically, but do not like the two main candidates, will almost certainly find something amongst the third party candidates. Again, if you think third party candidates are a waste of a vote, you may be right. But it's your fault for reinforcing that by not voting.
myke.[/quote]
I did end up voting do to some outside influences (certainly not this forum) but in the end it amounted to not much more than a coin flip.
I guess learning the so-called and ever changing "candidate's positions" via CNN and throught televised debates (which often border on comedy) may make you feel brilliantly informed.
Whatever makes you happy I suppose......[/quote]
I am glad that you voted. It is a RIGHT that you have where you can actually have a say through a democratic process. That is an awesome thing and is one that is taken for granted. People in other countries get killed for even discussing opposing views against the government.
However, just because you find the debates amusing it is 100% YOUR responsibility to understand what the platforms each candidate supports. Just because you couldn't figure it out during the debates (where they clearly laid them out and even directed people to other sources for information), doesn't releive you of that responsibility.
Either of these two morons
I'm taking this one off..........Maybe in 2008[/quote]
I'm sorry but this is the most moronic thing...One of them has to win...you might as well vote for which ever one you hate less....because if you vote you at least did the minium you could do for your country...you are basically insulting all the people who vote to get the right to vote...all the people who died to get the right to vote...I think it's very lazy...[/quote]
It is intellectually lazy to say that they are similar in ideas, and both of their plans 'suck.' People who flippantly say that amidst a refusal to vote, often have put very little, if not any, effort into finding information about the candidate's positions....they instead cover their own ass by saying that they both suck.
Chances are, they could not possibly propose a cogent argument about what policies of Bush and Kerry suck, and develop well thought out arguments about why they suck. Generalizations are easy. Coherence is much more difficult. If you're such a lazy shaq-fu that you can't learn the candidate's positions, then don't vote; just don't pretend that you are too high and mighty for the democratic process. Confortably admit that you are just a bastard.
Those who participate democratically, but do not like the two main candidates, will almost certainly find something amongst the third party candidates. Again, if you think third party candidates are a waste of a vote, you may be right. But it's your fault for reinforcing that by not voting.
myke.[/quote]
I did end up voting do to some outside influences (certainly not this forum) but in the end it amounted to not much more than a coin flip.
I guess learning the so-called and ever changing "candidate's positions" via CNN and throught televised debates (which often border on comedy) may make you feel brilliantly informed.
Whatever makes you happy I suppose......[/quote]
I am glad that you voted. It is a RIGHT that you have where you can actually have a say through a democratic process. That is an awesome thing and is one that is taken for granted. People in other countries get killed for even discussing opposing views against the government.
However, just because you find the debates amusing it is 100% YOUR responsibility to understand what the platforms each candidate supports. Just because you couldn't figure it out during the debates (where they clearly laid them out and even directed people to other sources for information), doesn't releive you of that responsibility.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Yeah, here they just get arrested and beaten.
WarrenGekko
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Quackzilla']Yeah, here they just get arrested and beaten.[/quote]
I'm sorry that happened to you
I'm sorry that happened to you
spyhunterk19
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
[quote name='romeogbs19']
Another term for this is "Reagan-omics" --.[/quote]
Or as I like to call it: Voodoo Economics
Another term for this is "Reagan-omics" --.[/quote]
Or as I like to call it: Voodoo Economics
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='spyhunterk19'][quote name='romeogbs19']
Another term for this is "Reagan-omics" --.[/quote]
Or as I like to call it: Voodoo Economics[/quote]
"In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. "Voodoo" economics."
Another term for this is "Reagan-omics" --.[/quote]
Or as I like to call it: Voodoo Economics[/quote]
"In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. "Voodoo" economics."
bread's done