Voting for bush?

[SPG]

Bush's Record (http://www.southknoxbubba.net/skblog/archive_2004_10.php#3598)

He can run but he can't hide

Sunday October 17, 2004

Bush says Kerry "can run be he can't hide" with regard to his record in the Senate. He also says Kerry's "record doesn't match his rhetoric."

OK, then.

Since Bush is apparently running on his own record of accomplishment, it only seems appropriate to remind voters of his distinguished record with this final Election Special Update of the Bush Record of Accomplishments:

Rigged an election (and went crying to the Supreme Court when he got caught) in conspiracy with brother Jeb in Florida to take office.

Appointed an administration made up of former executives and government officials who helped Saddam develop WMD, were involved in illegal arms sales, traded with the enemy in violation of U.S. law, and whose companies now profit from war by way of billions in no-bid contracts paid for by American taxpayers.

Stonewalled GAO and Congress request for documents relating to Enron influence of Federal Energy Policy.

Representing party of smaller government and less Federal spending, created largest bureaucracy in U.S. history and signed largest entitlement spending program in U.S. history.

As compared to the day Bush took office nearly four years ago, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is down 6% two weeks before his reelection bid. Historically, the stock market is expected to gain 10% to 12% per year over the long term.

The S&P 500, the index generally regarded as the most representative of the markets and our economy, is down 17% since the day Bush took office.

The technology (jobs of the future!) focused NASDAQ composite is down 31% since the day Bush took office.

Presided over an increase in consumer debt to all time record high of over $2 trillion and an increase in personal bankruptcy filings to an all time high of 1.6 million households in 2003.

Despite taking over after the longest and largest economic expansion in U.S. history, presided over the loss of more than three million jobs, with nearly nine million people out of work.

Has proposed no jobs programs, instead relying on tax cuts to stimulate the economy (see above for how that's working out). His policies have created only a fraction of the jobs he promised.

Bush is the first president in over seventy years since the Great Depression to preside over a net loss of jobs.

Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy have put a strain on the middle class and working poor. With cuts in programs at Federal, state, and local levels and dramatic increases in tuition and health care and energy costs, most families are worse off than before the tax cuts, especially the ones who have lost their jobs or their health insurance.

On Bush's "compassionate conservative" watch, more people are living in poverty. 1.3 million people fell into poverty during 2003 alone. Nearly 36 million are now living in poverty in the U.S. The poverty rate among children is the highest it has been in ten years.

Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy could pay for hiring all nine million people out of work and pay them $40K for two years instead of benefiting wealthy.

Presided over the largest trade deficit in U.S. history, a record $489 billion in 2003, while the value of the dollar has reached an all time low against the Euro and the Yen. The trade deficit for 2004 is expected to hit a new record of $590 billion, an increase of 19% in the past year alone. Bush's trade deficits represent millions of American jobs going overseas.

Began privatization of Medicare disguised as prescription drug benefit.

Lied to Congress and the American people about the cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, intimidates government employees to cover it up.

The cost of health insurance has risen nearly 40% on Bush's watch and overall health care costs have risen by about 50%. Meanwhile, HMOs and insurance and pharmaceutical companies cut back services and rack up huge profits and their CEOs enjoy huge multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses. More than 44 million people are now without health insurance in America, including nearly 10 million children. Five million people have lost their health insurance on Bush's watch.

Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy would fund health insurance for all 45 million uninsured Americans, including nearly ten million uninsured children.

Pushed legislation to eliminate overtime pay for up to eight million American working people.

Pushed legislation to limit medical malpractice claims to $250K, even if an incompetent doctor kills your wife or cuts off your legs instead of removing your appendix.

Installed a new Senate majority leader with ties to health care industry to shepherd through legislation benefiting corporate insurance and pharmaceutical pals.

Pushed legislation to limit bankruptcy protections for consumers targeted by predatory lenders, but proposes no reforms for rogue corporations such as Enron that blow off creditors, employees, and investors at pennies on the dollar.

Despite inheriting an $80 billion surplus from the Clinton administration, Bush turned it into a projected $2 trillion deficit with tax cuts, war, and out of control spending. The deficit for 2004 alone hit a new all time record high of $413 billion, a nearly 10% increase in one year.

Gutted clean air regulations, allowing utilities and factories to continue polluting the atmosphere, calling it "Clear Skies".

Rolled back environmental reviews and opens national forests up to the logging industry, calling it "Healthy Forests".

Rolled back wetlands protection, reducing or eliminating regulations prohibiting pollution of wetlands, calls it "Clean Water Act".

Rolled back wilderness protections, opening up wilderness areas to logging, mining, other development.

Despite bizarre rhetoric about a manned mission to Mars and Pentagon ideas for "Space Cadets" armed with ray guns, has virtually abandoned the U.S. manned space program, which is currently without a manned space flight capability.

Opposes stem cell research that could lead to cures for previously incurable diseases on moral grounds, despite the fact that embryos are routinely destroyed (or "killed" as Bush would say) every day during vitro fertilization procedures. In fact, Bush feels so strongly about stem cell research that it was the subject of one of his rare television addresses to the American people, which occurred the day after he received an intelligence briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" (one month before he did). Bush's "faith-based science" policies ignore advances in modern science.

Lack of oversight of the pharmaceutical industry as a result of the administration's close ties with the industry resulted in a flu vaccine shortage and rationing. Bush stood before the American people and lied about the most recent problems, saying the contaminated flu vaccine was provided by a British company and U.S. officials prevented it from being imported. In fact, an American company produced it at a factory in England, and British officials caught it and alerted the U.S. who did nothing to secure an alternate supply.

Blames trial lawyers for the flu vaccine shortage, but the fact is that many companies have gotten out of the vaccine business because it is not profitable. And as we all know, profits, not people, drive health care in Bush's America.

Promotes school vouchers to take taxpayer money away from public education and give it to wealthy families to send their kids to private and mostly religious schools. Bush has refused to fully fund his only education initiative, in effect setting public education up for failure by his artificially imposed standards.


continued...

[SPG]

Adopted the Project for a New American Century's strategy paper on Rebuilding America's Defenses as the official U.S. National Security policy, a policy that calls for imperialist expansion in the middle east and hopes for a national catastrophe "on the scale of Pearl Harbor" to awaken the public to the dangers posed by not adopting this policy. Bush hires most of its authors to run the Pentagon and develop defense policy.

The worst terrorist attack in history, and the worst attack on U.S. soil occurred on the Bush administration's watch, and Bush undermined efforts to investigate mounting evidence of numerous warnings that could have prevented it.

Claims there was no advance warning of the 9/11 attacks and there was no way they could have envisioned terrorists hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. A month before the attacks, received (while on vacation) a report entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." The report mentioned plans to hijack aircraft and al-Qaeda surveillance of Federal buildings in New York City.

Claims counter-terrorism was a top priority in the early months of his administration. Bush proposed no counter-terrorism policies or initiatives, and rarely discussed counter-terrorism in any of his official speeches or press conferences prior to 9/11. In fact, al-Qaeda was mentioned only once during the course of any of Bush's official duties, when he renewed Clinton's executive order imposing sanctions against the Taliban.

Signed the "Patriot Act" that limits civil liberties and violates the Bill of Rights contained within the Constitution he took an oath to protect and defend.

Presided over illegal arrest and detention and physical abuse of criminal suspects, who are held in secret without benefit of counsel or any charges.

Made speeches and signed laws promising more funding for shipping container inspections at U.S. ports to look for nukes and other WMD, then eliminated funding from budget.

Allowed North Korean sale of Scud missiles to Yemen.

Made a deal with Iranian terrorist organization.

Conducted a "preventive", unprovoked military invasion of sovereign state resulting in over 1000 U.S. military casualties and thousands of civilian deaths. He deceived Congress, the UN Security Council, and the American people using "sexed-up" intelligence to justify the invasion.

Claimed two trailers used to make hydrogen for balloons, a vial of botox in some guy's refrigerator, and some junk buried in some guy's rose garden are "proof" of Iraqi WMD "programs", or as they are later termed in his State of the Union, "weapons of mass destruction related program activities".

When U.S. weapons inspectors cannot find 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, tens of thousands of chem/bio warheads, and an advanced nuclear weapons program in Iraq and say that in fact they probably never existed despite Bush telling Congress and the American people they posed a "grave danger" and Rumsfeld saying "we know where they are" and Powell showing the U.N. pictures of them, Bush says "What's the difference?" and blames it on faulty intelligence. Report after report comes out saying Bush was wrong on WMD so he continues to change his justifications for the war.

Presided over serious abuses, including the alleged torture, rape, and murder, of prisoners of war in violation of the Geneva Convention at a notorious Iraqi prison formerly used by Saddam to torture, rape, and murder prisoners. Rumsfeld approved some sort of "enhanced" interrogation techniques and Bush was aware of it because of the Pentagon's request for a legal analysis of whether the Geneva Convention applied. They now claim it was just a few bad apples engaging in some fraternity prank type activity.

Proposed sweeping cuts in veteran's benefits, instructs Veteran's Administration to deceive veterans with regard to benefits available.

Dressed in fighter pilot costume and flew military jet to aircraft carrier for stunt landing and political fundraising/campaign event despite having ticket pulled and being grounded for failing to take required physical and drug test and being curiously absent from his post during the Vietnam conflict.

Declares victory in Iraq, yet soldiers die in Iraq every day, half the country has no electricity or water, attempts to install democracy failing miserably, WMD cannot be found, neither can Osama.

Has destroyed American respect and credibility around the world. Unable to get assistance from France, Germany, or India to provide troops for additional security and peacekeeping in Iraq.

Administration is under investigation for illegally leaking the name of a covert CIA agent in retaliation for her husband exposing lies about Iraq's nuclear weapons program. The CIA demanded an investigation after Bush's denials. A Grand Jury has been convened to pursue criminal charges, and several key Bush administration officials have been subpoenaed to testify. Karl Rove was subpoenaed to testify just this week, two weeks before the election.

Proposes development of tactical nuclear weapons in violation of 1992 Senate ban which Bush worked to repeal.

Says nuclear weapons nonproliferation is a "centerpiece" of his war on terror, yet he is pursuing development of new nuclear weapons systems, withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, and does not support ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty.

According to a biographer, Bush believes that he was selected by God to lead America and had preachers come to the Governor's mansion in Texas to "lay hands" on him and pray for his future during his campaign.

Appoints as U.S. Attorney General a fundamentalist Christian who believes he receives divine guidance directly from God and anoints himself with Crisco and who was defeated by a dead man in his failed U.S. Senate election campaign.

Pushed legislation to fund faith based social programs, Congress rejected it, so Bush issued executive order (his first) to allow Federally Funded local and state programs to hire or fire based on religion or ideology and to promote religion as part of delivering services.

Declined an invitation to the NAACP convention, but addresses Southern Baptist Convention by satellite, calling them faithful servants and praying for them, while they adopt a policy that "homosexuals can find freedom from this sinful, destructive lifestyle" by accepting Jesus as their savior.

Comments on Supreme Court homosexual rights decision, saying "marriage should be between a man and a woman". Proposed a constitutional amendment in the State of the Union address to eliminate civil rights for an entire segment of the population.

Sends letter to Supreme Court urging them to strike down Affirmative Action programs, celebrates Strom Thurmond's "remarkable life" and says he was a friend.

Allows cabinet member in charge of education to call American teachers "terrorists" and get away with it.

Promises not to use 9/11 for politics, releases campaign TV ads showing firemen carrying remains of victims from ground zero.

Accused Kerry of "flip-flopping" by voting for an $87 billion defense appropriation and then against it, thereby denying troops the supplies and ammunition they need in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fails to mention that the version Kerry voted for included additional funding for veteran's benefits and that the version Kerry voted against had these provisions removed after Bush threatened to veto the bill if they weren't.

Accuses Kerry of voting against defense spending and weapons systems, when in fact it was Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney who at the time opposed the spending and complained that Congress was making him buy weapons systems he didn't need.

Despite being at war around the world and under constant threat of terrorist attack at home, Bush has spent 40% of his presidency on vacation.

Spending more than $200 million to get re-elected against a challenger the GOP says is unelectable.

In summary, it would seem that President Bush's record does not match his rhetoric. We can do better. The American People deserve better.

OK, then.


If you check out the site, it has all the links. South Knox Bubba (http://www.southknoxbubba.net/skblog/archive_2004_10.php#3598)

[Dont Hurt Me]

Thank you. A must read for all diehard republicans.

[solvs]

Yes, but... Kerry is a flip-flopper. Don't you see? He changed his mind. Why should Bush run on his record, when he could just personally attack Kerry?

I'm really surprised so many people are falling for Bush's rhetoric.

[RandomDeadHead]

Yup that about sums it up.

It is quite shocking to me and mine that their are so many ignorant people in America today.


My father was a career marine, and my earliest memories as a boy was the great pride that I felt when I saw him in uniform. I felt like my father was single handedly protecting America from danger. Even when I was in my teens and was a pot smoking, tree hugging', hippy, I was very proud of my father. Even though he was fighting a war that in the end America could not win, and that I DID NOT support, I was proud of him.

But now as I sit here, I can't help feel that my soul is being split in two. On one side is my pride for my country. I am VERY proud and in awe of our girls and boys in the service. Their willingness to give up their lives for the belief that they are protecting us, is a true testament to human compassion. To sacrifice ones self for the good of the many is possibly the biggest gift one could give.

But on the other hand I do not have the ability to understand why this administration has so eagerly endangered the lives of our children and for what? Oil? To give a country something they obviously don't want? Money? Why the **** are they doing this to our children?
Ok so we had to take their WMD's away so they can not harm us or anyone else. Fine, but now that we know they don't have them, WHY THE **** ARE WE THERE? Yes Sadam is a very evil person that needed to be dealt with. But now that we have him? WHY THE **** ARE OUR CHILDREN STILL DYING?

Just come out and tell me Bush, What Exactly Are Our Children Dying For? Give me some reason to trust America again, hell give the world a reason to trust America again. Because make believe WMDs and Evil Sadam, just arnt enough to justify sacrificing our young people like this.

As I watch the news I can't help but to feel totally and utterly disgusted with my country. As the death tolls keep rising I feel pity for these children, for they died because our president was to busy defending his war then to see the mistakes he has made and to learn from this country other mistakes (read vietnam). For a man that is opposed to abortion because it "destroys life" he sure is hell bent on finding reason to destroy more life.
But like a north bound train, his day is coming fast, and hopefully Kerry will be able to help bring back some of the pride I felt as a boy.

As the great Bob Dylan says,
"Even the president of the united states must sometimes have stand and look at himself naked."

[edesignuk]

That is UNBELIEVABLE :eek: I will never understand America if he gets voted back in :rolleyes:

[MattG]

That is UNBELIEVABLE :eek: I will never understand America if he gets voted back in :rolleyes:That makes two of us (and I live there).

[skunk]

As the great Bob Dylan says,
"Even the president of the united states must sometimes have stand and look at himself naked."
Hey, don't misquote THE MAN! No self-regard included.

[yellow]

That makes two of us (and I live there).'

Make that 3 of us..

[ocellnuri]

4 here.

[toontra]

From the title of this thread I thought it might lure in a few Republicans who would explain why they intend voting for Bush.

Seems there is a remarkable reluctance in this area! I wonder why? You would have thought that a person about to vote for leader of the free world would be happy and willing to share their thoughts.

Could it be that voting Bush is somehow percieved, even by the individuals themselves, as a guilt-ridden, self-interested and shameful deed, to be kept between the voter and their maker!

[solvs]

WHY THE **** ARE WE THERE? (in Iraq)
A question that should have been asked before we went. Many did try to warn that going there would be a mistake, but they did not listen. Just like they didn't listen before 9/11. Just like they aren't listening now. Ignoring or attacking anyone who disagrees with them, even if they turn out to be right. Fighting the 9/11 Commision, then taking credit for it. Talking about all sorts of social and economic programs, then underfunding them and talking about how great they are and how good things are going, though it plainly is not. And yet they want me to trust them with my safety, and my country? My world? I don't think so.

I do not understand how anyone with their eyes open could stand behind Bush.

[SPG]

From the title of this thread I thought it might lure in a few Republicans who would explain why they intend voting for Bush.

Seems there is a remarkable reluctance in this area! I wonder why? You would have thought that a person about to vote for leader of the free world would be happy and willing to share their thoughts.


There has been a bit of discussion lately about the different worlds that bush supporters and the rest of us inhabit. I've heard it described as a battle of faith based versus reality based. On the surface that sounds especially harsh towards the bush supporters, but if you look at it closely it is a very accurate description.
They have faith that bush will do the right thing. They have faith that bush is a man of principle and a strong leader. They have faith that Kerry is a liberal flip flopper.
The facts say the opposite. The reality is that bush's interests are not always the same as his supporters. bush flip flops. bush sat in a classroom having a book read to him for seven minutes after being told the country was under attack. Their faith that Kerry is bad is only to justify their faith that bush is good.
It's a hard thing to lose your faith. If you're a religious person you don't want to know that God doesn't exist. You will not seek that information. Given that information you will still believe that he exists. I believe in God and even given irrefutable proof that he doesn't exist, I will still believe in God out of pure faith.
These people believe in bush. For them not to believe would be devastating. How can a bush supporter come in here and debate his merits on his record and on the results of his policies? They can't and they don't want to. Any defense of the bush administration and bush the man degenerate into arguments against the other guy, or empty hype ups of the myth of bush. Any of bush's accomplishments quickly crumble when the real effects are exposed under the spin. Reread the list and tell me what bush has really done that would trump that list and make it a good idea to vote for him.

[kilpajr]

From the title of this thread I thought it might lure in a few Republicans who would explain why they intend voting for Bush.

Seems there is a remarkable reluctance in this area! I wonder why? You would have thought that a person about to vote for leader of the free world would be happy and willing to share their thoughts.

Could it be that voting Bush is somehow percieved, even by the individuals themselves, as a guilt-ridden, self-interested and shameful deed, to be kept between the voter and their maker!

I am a Republican and I am "happy and willing" to share my thoughts. However, what is the point? I am not going to change anyone's mind. You are not going to change my mind. Am I not going to change my mind because I have faith in Bush and won't give it up as SPG suggested? No.
They have faith that Kerry is a liberal flip flopper. The facts say the opposite. If you believe this, there is nothing the Bush campaign, I, or anyone else can say that will make any difference. Personally, I think if you believe this you are not looking at the facts. I believe Kerry is doing whatever he can to get elected, regardless of whether it contradicts something he has previously said. I tried to show the inconsistency of Kerry on guns in another thread and everyone there couldn't care less. If there was a poll of people on where Kerry stood on the issues, I think it would be very divided because Kerry is not clear on where he stands (for example, where does Kerry stand on whether we should have gone to war in Iraq?).

I think it is scary that many people are willing to vote for Kerry just because he is not Bush. Bush doesn't have much going for him as far as the circumstances that he has had since he has been in office. However, many people want to blame everything that is wrong in our country on Bush. I think this is just plain wrong. For example, people complain that Bush hasn't funded the programs he has created but the same people complain about how high the deficit is and how bad the economy is. You can't have it both ways. Kerry says that he is going to raise taxes only on those that make over 200k but it has been shown that this is not possible. Where is the other money going to come from?

OK, I'm going to end my post. Maybe I'll post more of what I think if anyone cares. It is surprising to me that even though the country is about evenly divided on who to vote for, I am about the only Bush supporter in these political forums. That's a big reason I don't post or even look in these forums often. It seems to be a place for everyone to just bash on Bush.

[IJ Reilly]

(for example, where does Kerry stand on whether we should have gone to war in Iraq?).

Picking up on this one point: Kerry has made his position abundantly clear, and that fact won't change no matter how often you suggest otherwise. The real issue here is whether you or any other diehard Bush supporters are prepared to listen to what Kerry actually says, instead of the administration's spin on what he says. This campaign really does boil down to a fight between truth and spin.

[kilpajr]

Picking up on this one point: Kerry has made his position abundantly clear, and that fact won't change no matter how often you suggest otherwise. The real issue here is whether you or any other diehard Bush supporters are prepared to listen to what Kerry actually says, instead of the administration's spin on what he says. This campaign really does boil down to a fight between truth and spin.

I know he said he gave power to the President to make the decision. However, he had the same intelligence that Bush had. He hasn't said, "yes, I would have gone into Iraq" or "no, I would not have gone into Iraq". If he wouldn't have gone into Iraq, why did he vote to give Bush the power to do so? Anytime I say anything anti-Kerry, everyone just says I am putting the administration's spin on what Kerry says. I am simply stating what I feel and I try not to just use the same arguments that are repeated over and over. It is absurd to think that what Kerry and the Democratic Party say is the absolute truth and has no spin.

[IJ Reilly]

Kerry has said he'd have allowed the inspections to continue, would have built a more meaningful coalition if war became a necessity, and made certain that post-war plans were in place to, in his words "secure the peace." This just so happens to be the same line of argument he's made consistently for years, and also the argument made by many, many others (both in the US and abroad) in response to Bush's shoot first and ask questions later policy. The fact that this position is today irrefutably the correct one to have taken makes it a necessity, I guess, for the Bush campaign to constantly misrepresent it.

[relimw]

Could it be that voting Bush is somehow percieved, even by the individuals themselves, as a guilt-ridden, self-interested and shameful deed, to be kept between the voter and their maker!

Actually, I think it's because we all know that on this forum, what the for-bush people say will never be right. Only the opinion of the not-for-bush crowd prevails here.

Which is odd, why are you 'not-for-bush' rather than 'for-kerry'? I just can't fathom that. In recent polls (pick your favorite US news site) 75% of bush backers are 'for-bush', only 30% of kerry backers are 'for-kerry'.

[atszyman]

If he wouldn't have gone into Iraq, why did he vote to give Bush the power to do so?

We could put all of the troops we want outside of Iraq but war cannot be declared without Congress' consent. In order for our threat of force to have any credibility Congress needed to give the president authorization to declare war. Bush assured congress that he would work to find a diplomatic solution and only use war as a last resort, which he did not do.

[zimv20]

In recent polls (pick your favorite US news site) 75% of bush backers are 'for-bush', only 30% of kerry backers are 'for-kerry'.
link, please

[zimv20]

[Kerry] had the same intelligence that Bush had.
did he? according to some (richard clarke, seymour hersh, et. al.), the WH selected intelligence and showed only what made its case.

does that make a difference to you?

[toontra]

Actually, I think it's because we all know that on this forum, what the for-bush people say will never be right. Only the opinion of the not-for-bush crowd prevails here.

I see from your profile that you've only been here a few months. I have to tell you that when I joined nearly two years ago it was close to a 50/50 split. I agree that things are different now with a predominance of anti-Bush sentiments represented.

What could explain this? What I have seen is that, one by one, the hard-right, pro-Bush posters have been comprehensively out-argued and have either suddenly vanished into thin air or have resorted to personal abuse and have been banned. Make of that what you may.

kilpajr - you suggest most of Kerry's support is due to anti-Bush feeling rather that actively supporting Kerry himself, yet you yourself in replying to a "Voting for Bush?" thread don't give a single positive reason for voting Republican but rather repeat the parrot-like jibe about Kerry flip-flopping (the substance of which has been well answered by atszyman and IJ Reilly).

You really should try and attain some consistency in your argument if you wish to be taken seriously.

[relimw]

link, please

Hmm, seems in the latest poll, the 'for-kerry' number has actually improved, the article I was reading originally was dated Oct. 5th. In any case, here's the
latest poll. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135932,00.html)


Are voters backing their candidate because they like him or because they dislike the other candidate? Almost all Bush supporters (81 percent) describe their vote as being "for Bush," with only 15 percent saying their vote is "against Kerry."

Supporters of the Democratic challenger are more divided, as 56 percent say their vote is "for Kerry" and 37 percent say "against Bush." Positive feelings among Kerry voters have increased significantly since early September when a large minority (41 percent) described their vote as "for Kerry" and a 51 percent majority said "against Bush."

[edesignuk]

latest poll. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135932,00.html)
Fox News http://upload.edesignuk.net/uploaded_data/smilies/rollinglaugh.gif From all that I've ever read on here opinions of Fox news are not the best, they're not exactly the best source for reliable information so I gather.

[3rdpath]

I am a Republican and I am "happy and willing" to share my thoughts....snip.... Personally, I think if you believe this you are not looking at the facts.

i am "happy and willing" to hear your thoughts about the accomplishments of bush during the last four years. perhaps you'd care to discuss:

1) the largest deficit in history ( coming out of a surplus).
2) bush's environmental record.
3) bush's record of gross job losses.
4) the rise in people uninsured and living in poverty in the u.s.
5) the quagmire of iraq/ expansion of al queda
6) the squandering of world support after 9/11
7) tax cuts that favor the wealthy.
8) how bush's financial record conforms to the republican view of fiscal responsibility. ( see #1)
9) the administration's failure/unwillingness to disclose the procedure by which it created our energy policy.

please, sway me...

[wowser]

the polls they do are independent, surely, however bias the way they report them. The poll sadly looks accurate :(

[Lyle]

From all that I've ever read on here opinions of Fox news are not the best, they're not exactly the best source for reliable information so I gather.Here (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/media/poll20041019.pdf) is a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that reports a similar trend. If you look at questions 9e and 9f (at the bottom of page 5):


Of those who said they'd vote for Kerry/Edwards if the election were held today, 48 percent said they were voting against Bush, while only 37 percent were voting for Kerry.
Of those who said they'd vote for Bush/Cheney if the election were held today, 74 percent said they were voting for Bush, while only 16 percent were voting against Kerry.

[relimw]

From all that I've ever read on here opinions of Fox news are not the best, they're not exactly the best source for reliable information so I gather.

Again, this forum is bias in my opinion, but ah well, if you don't like my source, feel free to find one that disagrees with it, and let me know. At least I'm not quoting johnkerry.com or bushcheney.com (or whatever they are). At least Fox news is as independent as CBS news is.

[iGav]

'

Make that 3 of us..

Make that 5...

And the scary thing is, he'll still get voted in... :eek:

[Lyle]

relimw made a claim that a large percentage of Bush's are "for Bush", while a relatively small percentage of Kerry's backers are "for Kerry". You challenged him to provide a link to back this up, and he did. edesignuk questioned the validity of that poll, and so I provided a link to yet another poll that supports relimw's claim. In the meantime, relimw has also challenged edesignuk to find a poll from what he considers a "reliable" source that shows evidence to the contrary.

I'm not holding my breath that that's going to happen. So, yes, I imagine relimw is a little frustrated, if he's suffering from the delusion that he can change peoples' minds. But the invitation's there. To quote your sig, "Feel free to provide authoritative references; in the meantime, you won't mind if we conclude that you're simply making this up."

[IJ Reilly]

When has a president's request to use military power ever been denied? I can't think of a single instance. The most curious thing about the argument that Kerry voted to give Bush this authority is it seems to be an effort to absolve Bush of any responsibility for what came next.

[IJ Reilly]

relimw made a claim that a large percentage of Bush's are "for Bush", while a relatively small percentage of Kerry's backers are "for Kerry".

The point of all this is lost on me. Yes, this election is referendum on the incumbent, but what's so unique about that? The real news is that the incumbent hasn't been able to keep his job approval numbers above 50%. Any president who's done a credible job in his first term gets four more years almost automatically. The fact that Bush is so vulnerable should tell us far more than any theorizing about what motivates voters to not support him.

[atszyman]

1) the largest deficit in history ( coming out of a surplus).
2) bush's environmental record.
3) bush's record of gross job losses.
4) the rise in people uninsured and living in poverty in the u.s.
5) the quagmire of iraq/ expansion of al queda
6) the squandering of world support after 9/11
7) tax cuts that favor the wealthy.
8) how bush's financial record conforms to the republican view of fiscal responsibility. ( see #1)
9) the administration's failure/unwillingness to disclose the procedure by which it created our energy policy.


I'll play devil's advocate here for a second.
1 & 2 I can't defend

3)http://www.factcheck.org/article275.html
Kerry misled when he claimed the economy has lost 1.6 million jobs under Bush.*It is true that*figures released earlier in the day show the economy is still down by*1.6 million private sector jobs since Bush took office, but the drop in total payroll employment -- including teachers, firemen, policemen and other federal, state and local government employees -- is down by much less than that -- 821,000. Furthermore, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced, with the release of the latest figures, that its yearly "benchmark" revision would add an estimated 236,000 payroll jobs to the total when made final next February. That means the best current estimate is that 585,000 jobs have been lost under Bush, about one-third of the number Kerry stated.

If you factor out the 1 million jobs that the administration keeps claiming were lost after 9/11 then we are at a net gain of 415,000 jobs.

4, 5, & 6 I cannot answer.

7)http://slate.msn.com/id/2108201/
Slate is fairly liberal so when they do an article that actually manages to come out in favor of the current administration I usually take note.

Here's what we get. The biggest percentage tax cut—about 17.6 percent—went to taxpayers in the second-lowest quintile, that is to taxpayers with below-average incomes. After that, the size of the tax cut falls off as you move from the lower middle to the middle middle (12.6 percent) to the upper middle class (9.9 percent). It rises again slightly for the top quintile, but only to a little over 11 percent.

The upper middle did get kind of shafted but the rich did not get the biggest benefit.

8 & 9 I have no answers for.

[latergator116]

Actually, I think it's because we all know that on this forum, what the for-bush people say will never be right. Only the opinion of the not-for-bush crowd prevails here.

Which is odd, why are you 'not-for-bush' rather than 'for-kerry'? I just can't fathom that. In recent polls (pick your favorite US news site) 75% of bush backers are 'for-bush', only 30% of kerry backers are 'for-kerry'.

Well, there are a lot of people out there who dislike Kerry, but hate Bush with a vengeance. Maybe they don't want to support either?

I fail to see point of your comment.

[Lyle]

The point of all this is lost on me. Yes, this election is referendum on the incumbent, but what's so unique about that?I think that Bush supporters are hoping that the general lack of enthusiasm for Kerry amongst his (Kerry's) supporters might weaken their resolve to actually go to the polls on November 2 and vote for him. And I think that Kerry's supporters would say something like, "The real news is that the incumbent hasn't been able to keep his job approval numbers above 50%." ;)

If the Democrats do a better job of "getting the vote out", as they say, it is of course a moot point: If Kerry wins more electoral college votes than Bush does, it doesn't matter whether his supporters were voting "for him" or "against Bush". The polls seem awfully volatile at this point in the game and so I don't put much stock in them whether they show my guy winning or losing. I honestly hope that whoever wins does so with a large enough margin that the results aren't subject to litigation. Yes, I mean that even if Kerry wins. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

And I think that Kerry's supporters would say something like, "The real news is that the incumbent hasn't been able to keep his job approval numbers above 50%."

Because few incumbents have been returned to office when their approval numbers fell below 50%, so that's a significant statistic no matter which side you're on. And you can bet that the Bush campaign is well aware of this number's historical importance.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Because few incumbents have been returned to office when their approval numbers fell below 50%, so that's a significant statistic no matter which side you're on. And you can bet that the Bush campaign is well aware of this number's historical importance.
With enough money and spin this can be overcome by the republicans. Get ready for a barage of commercials that attack Kerry but show no accomplishments from the Bush administration. How many times did we hear WMDs ? same thing. spin and more spin.

[pseudobrit]

With enough money and spin this can be overcome by the republicans.

Spin, what spin? There's no spin.
We never said we were going to find WMD in Iraq.
The economy sucks 'cause of 9/11.
Tax cuts help America.
The terrorists are to blame for the deficit.
We didn't choose this war.
Things are getting better in Iraq.
Afghanistan is a democracy.
The Clean Skies Act improved the air quality.
Oil prices aren't high, they're lower than they were in the 70s when adjusted for inflation.
Stem cell research is abortion.
Limiting medical malpractice lawsuits will fix the entire healthcare system.
Kerry is a flip-flopper who voted against the $87B.
There's no flu shot shot shortage, we're getting some from Canada.
But not prescription medication, because it's not safe.

[SPG]

This is interesting, seems most bush supporters are supporting other positions than bush's.
edit: Forgot the link (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_10/004974.php)

[DAVE2158]

Kerry has said he'd have allowed the inspections to continue, would have built a more meaningful coalition if war became a necessity, and made certain that post-war plans were in place to, in his words "secure the peace." This just so happens to be the same line of argument he's made consistently for years, and also the argument made by many, many others (both in the US and abroad) in response to Bush's shoot first and ask questions later policy. The fact that this position is today irrefutably the correct one to have taken makes it a necessity, I guess, for the Bush campaign to constantly misrepresent it.

History Lesson 1991 Bush 1 Had a Coalition and John Kerry Still Voted not to go to War.

History Lesson Bush 2
Wounld have never had a full colition Because the UN and company where in Sadhams pocket as the reports are starting to show FOOD FOR OIL.......AND THEN SOME.

Also John Kerry keeps on saying I have a Plan so what is it?

Yes I will be the first to say this President has made mistaskes.
Still they are one's I can live with Where was Senetor Kerry and the rest of you bleeding Hearts after the first WTC Bombing, THE USS COLE. No was going after these basters As Far as I am concerned your President Bill Clinton let this happen it was on his watch they tested us he was just a little bit to busy chasing girls his daughters age instead of terrorist and John Kerry was busy trying to cut spending for the people who's Job it was to catch them.
You can say what you want the facts are in John Kerry saw the same reports as the President and he new darn well what he was voting for because if he didn't then I sure don't what him leading this country.
NEVER TO BE FORGOTTEN .......
Last like the rest of the Bush people have said in this formun
we have very little to say cause it just isn't going to change your way.

[solvs]

Liberals didn't see a report titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US" and ignore it. Terrorism was actually a high priority to the Clinton administration (despite the skirt chasing, which I do actually have a problem with). It was not to Bush until after 9/11. Even then, instead of going after Al Qaida, who were actually the ones who attacked us, we went after Iraq on trumped up charges we now know are false. There was evidence at the time, from the same people who warned about 9/11 in the first place, saying that the war in Iraq was a mistake. Iraq has no WMDs, and had nothing to do with Al Qaida.

Bush has been quoted as saying he believed we would easliy win with no casualties, which explains the fact that it is now such a mess. There was no exit strategy and even his own generals were telling him they were not equipped to handle things. The administration showed evidence that supported the invasion, hid and/or disregarded evidence to the contrary, and (as already mentioned) promised to take time with this and be smart about it. He has not. Especially when we guarded the oil refineries instead of the weapons factories, thus losing dangerous material that just somehow disappeared. Even Rove has admitted we are creating more terrorist than we are killing, because we did exactly what Bin Laden said we would. Where is he BTW?

Not to mention all of the domestic issues he's messed up. And the fact that anyone who fights him is branded a traitor and just like the terrorists. Even if they have family and friends dying or getting hurt in this war and just want answers for why we are there, or people just trying to find answers for 9/11 after their loved ones were killed, while Bush fight the creation of the 9/11 Commision and a national intelligence agency (which he now takes credit for). I will be voting against Bush, rather than for Kerry. I admit it. He must be better, because he couldn't be worse. But take a look at the Bush supporters. Overwhelmingly they want him to do things differently according to most recent polls.

The man can't admit or take responsibility for any of the mistakes, do you really think he's going to change after he has nothing else to lose?

[blackfox]

History Lesson 1991 Bush 1 Had a Coalition and John Kerry Still Voted not to go to War.

History Lesson Bush 2
Wounld have never had a full colition Because the UN and company where in Sadhams pocket as the reports are starting to show FOOD FOR OIL.......AND THEN SOME.

Also John Kerry keeps on saying I have a Plan so what is it?

Yes I will be the first to say this President has made mistaskes.
Still they are one's I can live with Where was Senetor Kerry and the rest of you bleeding Hearts after the first WTC Bombing, THE USS COLE. No was going after these basters As Far as I am concerned your President Bill Clinton let this happen it was on his watch they tested us he was just a little bit to busy chasing girls his daughters age instead of terrorist and John Kerry was busy trying to cut spending for the people who's Job it was to catch them.
You can say what you want the facts are in John Kerry saw the same reports as the President and he new darn well what he was voting for because if he didn't then I sure don't what him leading this country.
NEVER TO BE FORGOTTEN .......
Last like the rest of the Bush people have said in this formun
we have very little to say cause it just isn't going to change your way.
God.Bless.America.

Sorry, Dave, I disagree with your take on things. At this stage in the game, however, I am not going to try and convince you of the error(s) of your decision. I will just say that you are presumably voting for Bush and I am voting for Kerry. So we cancel each other out. If you want to get technical, perhaps my vote is worth more since I live in a swing state (OR).

Either way, we will never see eye to eye. It is the nature of the system, in any case, to drag the unwilling minority along with the majority (or plurality).

Be thinking of you Nov. 2nd...

[takao]

NEVER TO BE FORGOTTEN .......


the only thing missing with that sentence is theatralic music in the background...

i guess we all know how fast the US forgets _their mistakes_

[DAVE2158]

the only thing missing with that sentence is theatralic music in the background...

i guess we all know how fast the US forgets _their mistakes_

So by your above Statement it seems to me that 9/11 was are fault. Are you of he mind set that all the ills of the world are Americas fault that in some warped sence we deserved 9/11. I do not know where you are from but I walk under those tower stood in there shadows and watch them fall. have a 13year old niece who on 9/11 watch people jump to there deaths and never has been the same ..... So if I can I would have the Music. how about you Hum the STAR SPANGLED BANNER OR AMAZING GRACE THAT MIGHT HELP YOU REMEBER .................3000 DEAD FOR WHAT AND DON'T SAY OIL OR THE ISRAEL OR THAT THE PRESIDENT PLANED IT.

:eek:

[takao]

So by your above Statement it seems to me that 9/11 was are fault. Are you of he mind set that all the ills of the world are Americas fault that in some warped sence we deserved 9/11.
not all ills but a not deniable amount
11 sept. (911 is reserved for something completly different) should have been taken as a wake up call by the US ...sadly it only lead to more ignorance towards the _real_ problems


I do not know where you are from but I walk under those tower stood in there shadows and watch them fall. have a 13year old niece who on 9/11 watch people jump to there deaths and never has been the same

sorry for you but it's not news that terrorism exists ..it's been around for decades or better centuries...


..... So if I can I would have the Music. how about you Hum the STAR SPANGLED BANNER OR AMAZING GRACE THAT MIGHT HELP YOU REMEBER .................3000 DEAD FOR WHAT

i'm not from the USA so your US-flag waving stuff is rather pointless ;)
i'm not really patriotic either because i think that blind patriotism is far to dangerous....

(i have problems remembering our own anthem so i'll have even bigger ones with other countries)

[toontra]

So by your above Statement it seems to me that 9/11 was are fault. Are you of he mind set that all the ills of the world are Americas fault that in some warped sence we deserved 9/11. I do not know where you are from but I walk under those tower stood in there shadows and watch them fall. have a 13year old niece who on 9/11 watch people jump to there deaths and never has been the same ..... So if I can I would have the Music. how about you Hum the STAR SPANGLED BANNER OR AMAZING GRACE THAT MIGHT HELP YOU REMEBER .................3000 DEAD FOR WHAT AND DON'T SAY OIL OR THE ISRAEL OR THAT THE PRESIDENT PLANED IT.

:eek:

Dave, the fact you live in New York doesn't give you a monopoly on morality, I'm afraid. To suggest that anti-Bush people are somehow unpatriotic and possibly even supporters of terrorism is disgraceful. Thankfully I can tell you that all my friends in New York (Manhatten - mainly down-town) are of the view that Bush is a dangerous idiot. I think the voting next week will show they are in the majority in your home town.

PS Oil and Israel (partly at least). There, I've said it!

PPS Stop shouting - you'll hurt yourself ;)

[mactastic]

Yes I will be the first to say this President has made mistaskes.
Still they are one's I can live with Where was Senetor Kerry and the rest of you bleeding Hearts after the first WTC Bombing, THE USS COLE. No was going after these basters As Far as I am concerned your President Bill Clinton let this happen it was on his watch they tested us he was just a little bit to busy chasing girls his daughters age instead of terrorist and John Kerry was busy trying to cut spending for the people who's Job it was to catch them.

Where are the perps of the first WTC attack right now? Under who's administration were they prosecuted? Hmm? And why was your President George W. Bush ignoring PDB's entitled 'Bin Laden determined to strike in US'? Bush let 9/11 happen on his watch because he was too busy stewing over 'the man who tried to kill mah dad'. Oh yeah, and what is Ashcroft's record on prosecutions of terrorists? 0-for-5000?

You can say what you want the facts are in John Kerry saw the same reports as the President and he new darn well what he was voting for because if he didn't then I sure don't what him leading this country.

The ************* administration misrepresented intelligence to Congress, so how can you possibly claim that tired GOP talking point that 'Kerry saw the same intelligence that Bush did'. That is a lie and a damnable one at that. Feith, for one told Congress things that were gross exaggerations. Do you really believe that Senators see everything that the president does?

NEVER TO BE FORGOTTEN .......
Last like the rest of the Bush people have said in this formun
we have very little to say cause it just isn't going to change your way.
No, it never will be forgotten that when the chips were down, the Bush administration picked their friends over the good of the country. But I would imagine nothing I say will change your way, will it? :p

[relimw]

i guess we all know how fast the US forgets _their mistakes_

But do you know how fast your country forgets it's mistakes? Hmm...

Or anybody else in Europe? Last I checked two world wars were fought in ya'lls neck of the woods. Europe also played a major role in creating the problems in the middle east to begin with, and ya'll have not been much help in fixing the problems that you created.

The UN would not have much of a military force without US support or troops. I personally think that the UN is a waste of time 75% or more of the time. (Name one time in the last 5 years that the UN successfully intervened militarily without the US).

[SiliconAddict]

God. I’m so sick of how there is this group of American’s, prob the 48% supporting bush, who think the US’s **** smells sweeter then everyone else’s. The fact of the matter is if you had bothered to pay attention in American History class we consistently are the 100k ton gorilla walking around the world screwing things up. Look at anything we get involved with over the years and you will see a complete and consistent cluster**** of screwups. I mean for god sake we gave Saddam Hussein a starter kit of biological seeds to get his biological warfare program up in running in what? 80’s? We financed Bin Ladden and trained him and his recruits during that little cold war scuffle with the USSA…Sorry finger actually slipped on the keyboard…..heh…USSR. Go through our history. We dick around in other countries affairs and inevitably and predictably screw things up.
Did we have it coming to us in regards to 9|11? Oh hell no. I don’t care who you are or how bad you f-ed up there is no justification for taking it out on your civilians. But don’t tell me that terrorists didn’t have a reason other then this crap Bush keeps ejecting from his anus about them hating freedom. They couldn’t care less about what freedoms we have. Their reasons are just as thought-out as our reasons for invading Iraq…e.g. We thought it was the right thing to do. Well so did they.
And if you think this post is being callous about 9|11 think again. Our company lost 3 floors on the first tower. It was incredibly hard setting up new laptops for the small section of the list of people who survived that day in hell. Just seeing that list put me on the edge of tears that day.
No. No more. 9|11 is a Goddamn excuse now a days. I’m sick of it. I’m sick of the lies and frankly I’m sick of the continuing BS put forth but the gov. We as a country are soiling the names of the people that died on 9|11 as far as I'm concerned. How many of them would be spinning in their graves to know what we are doing in their name?
Speaking of spinning. I would love to see the reactions of our founding fathers upon hearing what changes have occurred to this country post 9|11. Thomas Jefferson would be spinning fast enough to generate power for New York for a week.
As far as I’m concerned the terrorists already have won. They have not only fragmented America. They have changed how we look at our citizens, how we treat our citizens, and our rights have been altered ever so slowly over the last few years. Not only that, Shrub has put in place the initial building block for another Hitler-isk personality to take over. Its not there yet. We just need to give him another 4 years to finish his work. You want to talk history. I’d suggest reading Germany’s and be scared as **** at how we are walking down that same path. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Right now the US has a double lane highway paved. So far we've laid about a mile. 1/3 of which has been laid down in the last four years.
If Bush is reelected we are so screwed I can't joke or even laugh about it. But what do I know. Lets use those nukes we have and kill everyone right? I mean that is the American way. Radiate first and forget asking questions. We are Americans. We can do whatever we damn well want!! YEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

[SiliconAddict]

But do you know how fast your country forgets it's mistakes? Hmm...

Or anybody else in Europe? Last I checked two world wars were fought in ya'lls neck of the woods. Europe also played a major role in creating the problems in the middle east to begin with, and ya'll have not been much help in fixing the problems that you created.

The UN would not have much of a military force without US support or troops. I personally think that the UN is a waste of time 75% or more of the time. (Name one time in the last 5 years that the UN successfully intervened militarily without the US).


Yep because we are the American Empire. We answer to no one and we are rulers of the world. All you other little pathetic countries bow to U.S.! We will spread the American way of life as far as the eye can see. You don't like that? Go suck a grenade. We are American! Hail the American Empire! May our domination last a 1,000 years. :rolleyes:


PS- YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

[skunk]

Hmmm. Somebody's on a roll... :rolleyes:

[SPG]

100 facts and one opinion (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=facts)

[SPG]

Bush supporters are clearly misinformed about their candidate. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/22/133923/44)

75% believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.


74% believe Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in agreements on trade.


72% believe Iraq had WMD or a program to develop them.


72% believe Bush supports the treaty banning landmines.


69% believe Bush supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.


61% believe if Bush knew there were no WMD he would not have gone to war.


60% believe most experts believe Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.


58% believe the Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had either WMD or a major program to develop them.


57% believe that the majority of people in the world would prefer to see Bush reelected.


56% believe most experts think Iraq had WMD.


55% believe the 9/11 report concluded Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda.


51% believe Bush supports the Kyoto treaty.


20% believe Iraq was directly involved in 9/11.

[takao]

Hmmm. Somebody's on a roll... :rolleyes:


on a _amusing_ roll (i liked the 1000 year reference)

[relimw]

More like off his rocker, and off subject.

[takao]

Bush supporters are clearly misinformed about their candidate. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/22/133923/44)

haha what an entertaining find ....
didn't just russia finally approved the kyoto protocols yesterday ? first they said they won'T sign it because of economy..looks liek they changed their minds...

[Mike Teezie]

I will pick up what atszyman dropped....

1, (Link please)

link (http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,593431,00.html)

[kilpajr]

I see from your profile that you've only been here a few months. I have to tell you that when I joined nearly two years ago it was close to a 50/50 split. I agree that things are different now with a predominance of anti-Bush sentiments represented.

What could explain this? What I have seen is that, one by one, the hard-right, pro-Bush posters have been comprehensively out-argued and have either suddenly vanished into thin air or have resorted to personal abuse and have been banned. Make of that what you may.

kilpajr - you suggest most of Kerry's support is due to anti-Bush feeling rather that actively supporting Kerry himself, yet you yourself in replying to a "Voting for Bush?" thread don't give a single positive reason for voting Republican but rather repeat the parrot-like jibe about Kerry flip-flopping (the substance of which has been well answered by atszyman and IJ Reilly).

You really should try and attain some consistency in your argument if you wish to be taken seriously.

There are plenty of reasons to vote for Bush. He is a strong leader, he's a moral person, he's improving the economy (do you really believe Bush single-handedly destroyed the economy?), I can actually believe what he says he will do to further improve the economy, but most importantly, I agree with most of what he has done. About the only thing I can think of right now that I disagree with is the Patriot Act.

I am pro-Bush. However, if someone other than Kerry were running, I might would have a little bit harder time deciding. Kerry has made my decision a whole lot easier. It seems to me that there is something wrong in how many votes he has missed in the senate. He has been the most liberal senator. How could Kerry vote against guns that hunters use all the time when he is a hunter himself? There are hardly any issues that I agree with (or believe he can or will actually do).

I stated in my earlier post that I am simply stating my opinion in what I say and try not to repeat the same old talking points. So, how about everytime I see you post something that I have heard before, I reply with your "parrot-like jibe" comment :rolleyes: . Come on.

[skunk]

There are plenty of reasons to vote for Bush. He is a strong leader
Do strong leaders mislead?

he's a moral person
Definition? Criterion? He is responsible for the deaths of 20,000 civilians in a war of choice. At Nuremburg, he would have been prosecuted.

he's improving the economy
By borrowing 5 trillion dollars from the US' trading partners? How can that help?

About the only thing I can think of right now that I disagree with is the Patriot Act.
Amen to that.

I am pro-Bush. However, if someone other than Kerry were running, I might would have a little bit harder time deciding.
If you really believe Bush is doing right, then why would a different contender change your mind? This is nonsensical.

I stated in my earlier post that I am simply stating my opinion in what I say and try not to repeat the same old talking points.
Fine. State away. But don't expect an accusation of liberality to cut much ice.

[kilpajr]

Do strong leaders mislead?
What are you talking about specifically?

Definition? Criterion? He is responsible for the deaths of 20,000 civilians in a war of choice. At Nuremburg, he would have been prosecuted.
Are you comparing Bush to Nazis in the Nuremburg trials? That doesn't even deserve a response.

By borrowing 5 trillion dollars from the US' trading partners? How can that help?
Well, Kerry says Bush's programs are underfunded. Do you want a larger deficit or funded programs? You can't have it both ways in this economy, which was turning downhill before Bush even took office by the way.

If you really believe Bush is doing right, then why would a different contender change your mind? This is nonsensical.
Did I say it would change my mind? No. I said I would have to consider the other candidate more. With Kerry, I disagree with almost everything so I don't have to think very hard.


Fine. State away. But don't expect an accusation of liberality to cut much ice.
I probably disagree with liberals most of the time, but when Kerry is the MOST liberal senator, how is he going to work with a (most likely) Republican controlled House and Senate and get anything done?

[blackfox]

kilpajr,

may I ask the specific issues in which you agree with Bush and/or disagree with Kerry?

I ask because there seems to be a certain amount of confusion as to the positions of the Candidates on many issues.

I believe it would be in both of our interests to have a discussion of our positions and how they are reflected by the candidates.

I am interested in a sensible debate here, as I do wish to hear and understand opposing viewpoints.

Would you care to respond? Thankyou.

[takao]

Are you comparing Bush to Nazis in the Nuremburg trials? That doesn't even deserve a response.

the charges were
1. conspiracy against (world)peace
2. agressive war (aka. attacking other countries)
3. war crimes (breaking conventions and treaties)
4. crimes against humanity

(i looked them up in the internet perhaps they were different ...i'm not sure if the first 2 were combined)

[atszyman]

i am "happy and willing" to hear your thoughts about the accomplishments of bush during the last four years. perhaps you'd care to discuss:

1) the largest deficit in history ( coming out of a surplus).
2) bush's environmental record.
3) bush's record of gross job losses.
4) the rise in people uninsured and living in poverty in the u.s.
5) the quagmire of iraq/ expansion of al queda
6) the squandering of world support after 9/11
7) tax cuts that favor the wealthy.
8) how bush's financial record conforms to the republican view of fiscal responsibility. ( see #1)
9) the administration's failure/unwillingness to disclose the procedure by which it created our energy policy.

please, sway me...

I know I defended a couple points in this list in the past despite my obvious bias against the current adminsistration. Now allow me to add another question or two.

10) How do you explain the fact that the current administration passed on 2 pentagon plans to eliminate Zarqawi before we invaded Iraq?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

I've brought this point up in a few threads already and don't have a good explanation yet. This scares the hell out of me. They passed on the chance to take out a known terrorist. They invaded Iraq instead and seemed more concerned about Saddam than Zarqawi. Who proved to be a bigger pain?

Zarqawi is running terrorist operations more freely in our liberated Iraq. Saddam hung out in a bunker until we found him.

Saddam had minimal ties to terrorism, Zarqawi was a known terrorist. We had already declared war on terror and were supposed to be finding a diplomatic solution to Iraq. They can't seem to keep their priorities straight.

[pseudobrit]

3000 DEAD FOR WHAT AND DON'T SAY OIL OR THE ISRAEL OR THAT THE PRESIDENT PLANED IT.

There are only 1000 dead soldiers. I agree, though, and for what?

[pseudobrit]

Last like the rest of the Bush people have said in this formun
we have very little to say cause it just isn't going to change your way.

Not as long as you can't be bothered to use the English language at least as effectively as the non-English-speaking members of this forum it isn't.

Or use basic netiquette. This is not a chatroom in AOL.

I may not agree with your opinion, but if you frame it well, it'll always make me rethink mine. Your simplistic, nearly unreadable rants just make me want to back take the few seconds they took to read.

[takao]

That is really grasping.
i just wanted to post it because i think the charges are worth a thought
(i don't think that bush should be prosecuted..voting him out would be good enough)


The more I hear the international community's opinion of U.S. activities outside our borders, the more I feel like the U.S. should return to isolationism. Maybe we should pull out of the U.N. and stop the $19.4 Billion (http://www.foreignaidwatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=792&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) in international aid the U.S. is planning for 2005. (Or maybe some countries are just sour that they aren't getting handouts like the rest of the world seems to be getting.)

19,4 sounds a lot but in 2003 norway,denmark,netherlands,sweden and luxembourg spent more than 10 and they are _much_ smaller than the US (they are the only countries who spend the 0,7% of their budget which should be spent per country concerning international agreements)

i'm not for an isolated USA more for an USA who works together with the international organisationes they founded (i don't understand that "we need no stinkin' UN" attitude at all)

BTW: have you read the bill you posted ?
i found that amusing:

"Foreign Military Financing $4.7775 billion (24.6%)"
(3.7 billions go to israel ,egypt and pakistan alone)

thank you for the link was were informative ... highly recommed to read it

[skunk]

What are you talking about specifically?
I seem to remember some crap about WMD as a pretext for war. Oh, and some crap about Al Qaeda being "connected" to Saddam. Do you deny that this was misleading?

Are you comparing Bush to Nazis in the Nuremburg trials? That doesn't even deserve a response.
One of the charges at Nuremburg was starting a war without good reason. If the war is illegal, both the military and the civilian deaths are murder.

Well, Kerry says Bush's programs are underfunded. Do you want a larger deficit or funded programs? You can't have it both ways in this economy, which was turning downhill before Bush even took office by the way.
Not being American, I really don't care. But spending $400 billion a year on the military and $200 billion on an unnecessary war can't help.

Did I say it would change my mind? No. I said I would have to consider the other candidate more. With Kerry, I disagree with almost everything so I don't have to think very hard.
Maybe that's just as well...

Still doesn't make sense.


I probably disagree with liberals most of the time, but when Kerry is the MOST liberal senator, how is he going to work with a (most likely) Republican controlled House and Senate and get anything done?
Meaningful definition? Or are you just parroting a sound-bite?

[SPG]

Check this out:
Republicans Voting for Kerry (http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Republicans_for_Kerry_2004)
and this:
http://republicansforkerry.org/
http://republicansforkerry04.org/
http://nationfirst-partysecond.org/
http://www.bushrelativesforkerry.com/pages/1/index.htm
http://backtothemainstream.com/

[3rdpath]

I will pick up what atszyman dropped....

1, (Link please)
2, I think Bush was correct in what he did. I think Clinton was wrong...

4, This rise started under Clinton Link (http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/BG1211ES.cfm)

5, Is Iraq a quagmire? That is a democrat term. It has been less that two years. Hardly a quagmire. Expansion of Al Queda? Link please...

6, It could be the dems who didn't support the pres after 9/11 and foreign nations seized upon this to weaken U.S. support

8, I agree he spends to liberally...

9, Democratic political ploy here. Not a real issue.

first, quit saying "democrat" this and that would you. i'm not a dem or a rep or an indie by today's definitions...i'm just a guy who votes for the best candidate regardless of party affiliation. your " democrat" tripe is as cliche as hillary's " vast right wing conspiracy".

so...
1) provided by another poster above
2) could you be more vague? what IS bush's environmental policy?
4) it may have started under clinton but it has swelled to epidemic proportions under bush. fox news (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130201,00.html)
5) yes, i believe it is a quagmire. i'm old enough to remember vietnem...the similarities are striking. i suggest you watch " the fog of war" and see if anything sounds/looks familiar. and btw, any military war that has no workable plan for victory or withdrawel is a quagmire. just because bush keeps saying things are going well doesn't make it true. as for al queda, it is common knowledge that their recruitment is up because of the sentiment sparked by the iraq war. also, al zarqowi has now effectively joined forces with al queda...sounds like an expansion to me. are you really suggesting that the number of al queda members has fallen?
6) your reply is high fiction and you know it. every politician crossed the isle to join together after 9/11...and almost every country on the planet publically shared our outrage over the horrible event. where did that unity go? do me a favor, next time you start a reply with " it could be"...just hit delete.
8) damn right.
9)democratic ploy? thats pure BS and shame on you for such a lightweight response... there was a time that politicians served office to represent the needs of the common citizen( or at least faked it a little...). how our officials set policy is of the utmost importance to me and it ought to be for you. having experienced the energy swindling of california/ the systematic price gouging at the pump and our politician's blind eye(s) to our horrible energy dependency--i'd say it certainly is an issue. blind trust in our representatives should also be an issue.

...

[solvs]

3000 DEAD FOR WHAT AND DON'T SAY OIL OR THE ISRAEL OR THAT THE PRESIDENT PLANED IT.
Change it to 1,000 and you could be talking about the war in Iraq. We haven't forgotten 9/11, but apparently the President has. Unless he's doing a speech, we have long since glossed over Osama and Al Qaida. Even Karl Rove admits we are creating more terrorists than killing while Bin Laden goes free. Iran, N. Korea, and Saudi Arabia are ignored. But I'm repeating myself. So why are we in Iraq anyway? Can't be the WMDs or the link to Al Qaida. Really, I want to know why. I can wave my flag just as much as you, but at least I don't call you unpatriotic. I noticed you've not responded to my post, so I will respond to your by reposting SPG's links: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/22/133923/44
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=facts

That is a democrat term
It could be the dems who didn't support the pres after 9/11
Democratic political ploy here. Not a real issue.
If your argument is going to consist of arguements like these, in a forum full of independants and people not in the US as well as liberals, you're going to have to do better than that. Especially considering the fact that a lot of people (Democrats and other nations) were behind us after 9/11, but not during the whole Iraq thing. That tells me more than anything. And I am not beholden to any political affiliation, I just calls it like I sees it when people are screwing up. Funny how I was called a conservative when I criticized Clinton.

I probably disagree with liberals most of the time, but when Kerry is the MOST liberal senator, how is he going to work with a (most likely) Republican controlled House and Senate and get anything done?
First of all, how do you know they are going to be mostly conservative? They might be, but I'd rather have a Democrat as Pres and Republicans Reps (or vice-versa) than 1 side completely controlling all 3. Second, how do you know he is the most liberal? Because Bush said it? What does that even mean? I hear the word liberal so much, it's lost all meaning. According to what I've read, he's fairly moderate. Even if he isn't, I'd rather have him than Bush. I now hate Bush that much. Nothing Kerry has done has made me dislike him enough to want another 4 years of this administration.

Their mistakes are inexcusable, and they can't even admit to a single 1.