He looks good in a cowboy hat (although he looks better in a trucker hat, for some reason).

This election is shaping up to be the strangest election of all time. Anti Bush sentiment is running so strong that Kerry's main position is simply that he is not George Bush. It seems that many people in this election will be voting against Bush rather than for Kerry.

The polls are coming in like no other election. At this point, a full three months before the election, less than 10% of voters are undecided. Roadglide's question "Tell me more about Kerry's positions" is disingenuous. I do not believe that his opinion will be swayed and he is most likely in the 90% of Americans that have already made up their mind.

I have discussed this topic with many people. Republican, democrat, young, old, male, female, black, white, etc. I have met more than a handful of people that voted for Bush in 2000 that are now planning to vote for Kerry in 2004. I have yet to meet anyone that voted for Gore in 2000, that is now planning to vote for Bush in 2004.

This makes sense to me. Bush's positions since being elected has moved right of center on almost all issues. Nation building, deficit spending, gay rights as a state issue, unifying america, america's position in the international community, etc. As he has moved further to the right, he has lost some of the middle of the road swing voters that helped win a narrow victory in 2000.

Which reminds me of a story: the first time that Putin was invited to Crawford, Texas, he got into a panic because he knew that he would be expected to ride a horse alongside Bush. So, he took riding lessons, so he wouldn't fall off his horse on TV.

He gets to Crawford, only to find that Bush doesn't ride.

Well, not horses, anyway. Bush rides a mountain bike. Oops! Maybe not.

Can anyone give me the definition of BOUNCE! It looks like the Democrats are trying to redefine it to fit their needs!

By the way did you catch the news about Fathead Moore in his movie where he made up the headline from an Indiana newspaper stating that the 2000 Election was wrong. The research was done and the newspaper says there was never such a headline and that Moore made it up! He LIED about the facts and just plain makes up anything that fits into his propoganda!

Let me see, we shouldn't vote for Kerry because one of his supporters is a liar.

Let's try this:


Please make a case for anyone voting FOR President Bush. You lose points if you attack Kerry or his supporters, or people he doesn't know. What is the case FOR Bush?

Once again, a sure sign of a weak candidate is that their campaign theme is personal attacks on the other candidate.

So, why do I get the feeling that the day before the November election, Homeland Securuty is going to reveal that some Arab computer geek posted the addresses of some polling places in 1999, and now Federal police should be posted at all polling places, and a threat level of Red maintained for any place where people might vote?

"Vote at your own risk, America is at war".

Last thought on this:

the election is actually already decided. IF all those ballyoed voter registration drives actually generated significant numbers of new voters, Bush is cooked. If its the same old, lots of talk but few new voters, Bush will win.

The die is already cast.

Let's see....here is small fraction of reasons not to vote for John Kerry for President.

Kerry says he can be trusted to defend the nation and fight terrorism. Yet, as a member for eight years of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Kerry missed 38 0f 49 intelligence hearings. So 78% of the time He was AWOL in his duty to the American people.

And then he has the balls to stand up at the convention and give his goofy Gomer Pyle salute and say " I am John Kerry and I am reporting for duty"....where the hell has he been for the last eight years.

He also voted to cut the Intelligence budget by 7.5 billion dollars. Also during that period ...there is no record of Kerry ever sponsoring a single piece of legislation to increase funding for human intelligence.

Kerry also promised to "build a stronger military" but he voted at least 12 times against higher miltary pay. How serious should his pledge be taken when his behaviour so far doesn't back it up?

No wonder Kerry doesn't want to talk about his Senate record!

Kerry repeatedly brings up his 4-month service in Vietnam. He paraded some of his Swift Boat colleagues on the convention stage. But most other members of that team have publicly said that Kerry is "unfit" to be Presidentand they question how he earned his Purple Hearts.

Kerry has admitted to comitting, participating and witnessing attrocities in Vietnam and not reporting them when they happened and breaking the rules of the Geneva Convention.

These are facts....not a personal attack....except the Gomer Pyle thing!

There are some pundits that are pointing out some very interesting facts on voters and polls. While most polls show the race to be a statistical tie, with a +/- of 4 percent, it is interesting to note how most polls are structured. The first and foremost is that the majority of the polling structures have one thing in common, that is they use the past voter participation as a basis for calculating participation in this election. One of the first questions asked is (if it's a blind poll) is: Did you vote in the last Presidential Election?.

This is important. Many democrats and independents, "sat out" the Bush vs. Gore presidential campaign. Some analyst have concluded that close to 10-15 percent of registred Democrats and independents who usually vote democratic did not vote the 2002 election. As a consequence thier preference is not included in most 2004 polls. In those polls that do include the "non voters" it shows Kerry leading by a significant margin.

Polls try to be reliable by using past trends to predict future participation, and they are right in excluding the non-reliable, part-time, sometime voters. Unfortunatly for Democrats they seem to have more of these voters than Republicans. As the Democratic party outnumbers the Republican party by about 20 percent, a boring humdrum campaign would turn-off, or dis-interest the part-time democratic voter and therefore would give an advantage to the Republican party.

In the 2000 election some "rust-belt" states that generally went democratatic were won by Bush by slim margins as sometimes more than 30 percent of the registered democrats stayed home, turned off by the Clinton scandal and Gore's support for NAFTA and his seemingly ant-labor union stances. The phone banks that were manned by hundreds of AFL-CIO unionists were, for the first time in nearly 30 years, silent.

It is these same states, labeled "battleground" or "swing" states, that show statistical dead heats or small leads by Bushh or Kerry.

There is no question that this election has galvanized both parties and voters both left, right or right down the middle.

But what no one want's to say is that if the voters turn out like they did for the 1996 election, and that the Republicans vote for Bush and the Democrats vote for Kerry, and few voters take to the sidelines and sit this one out, there is a growing perception that it would be Kerry by a near landslide or at the very least a significant majority.

The Democrats do not want to bring this up as a mere mention of a landslide might make democratic voters stay home thinking there are plenty of votes out there to elect their candidates, and galvanize Republicans to vote when maybe they wouldn't.

It's the same for Republicans. By endorsing polls that show Bush even or slightly behind, it will encourage Republicans to vote. Polls showing Kerry with a significant lead and early in the campaign process will discourage voters and more importantly discourage campaign contributers. This is what happened to Dole and Clinton went on to win by a significant margin after showing a real big lead early after the party conventions.

Both parties gain by showing the race to be close, although is the part-time democratic vote is figured into the polls, it will be Kerry by a wide margin. This is what the Republicans fear the most and this is what apperas to be happening.

OG

Gee, Beachman, I'm sorry to hear you can't come up with any good reasons to vote for Bush.

I guess if your candidate is no good, the only thing you can do is try to make the other candidate look worse. I guess Explorer8939 was right.

Is it true that all the Bush team can do this year is attack the opposition? You know, of course, that the decision the voters will make is whether Bush deserves re-election. By attacking Kerry, the message the Bush people are sending is that there is no good reason to vote for Bush, but everyone else is worse.

BTW, how can you possibly drone on about Kerry's war record without mentioning anything about the Bush record in Vietnam, Oh, maybe its because your guy is a draft dodger who spent the war playing poker and getting drunk while 50,000+ Americans died for their country.

According to the July 26 issue of Business Week the economy was creating more high paying jobs than low paying jobs.

It reports in that "40%" OF American workers belong to occupation/industry groups where the median pay is $559 a week or more. Yet employment growth in those higher paying groups accounted for more than half the total of job growth.

Average monthly emloyment in the higher- paying groups was 744,000 higher in the 12 months ended in June, 2004, than in the previous 12 month period. By contrast, only 408,000 jobs were added in groups whose median pay was $553 a week or less.

Average growth in gross domestic product (GDP)ted to 3.1 percent in 1996, but GDP has grow 5.6percent this year.

Yet Kerry says the US is "in the worst job recovery since the Great Depression." Kerry says he will "roll Back" the tax cuts for those making $200,000 per year. Even former President Clinton told a group of business leaders he agreed that he had raised such taxes "too much."

I think that Kerry should respond to the Bush tax cuts by promising to eliminate all federal income taxes for all companies and individuals. I honestly believe that the tax cuts have had a positive effect on the economy and removing all income taxes will have an even stronger impact on the economy.

Wait! Kerry would not do that, because we aren't playing with Monopoly money. And I believe that most people are smart enough to know that there must be a way to finance tax cuts in the face of a deficit.

BT-- u know, I think there is a point of diminishing returns on both ends of the spectrum. Taxes can be too high or they hit a point of diminishing returns, and they can be too low. Obviously they shouldnt be 100% or noone would produce. They cant be 0% either (well they can if sales taxes compensate). In fact, u and I both did what we were supposed to do with our tax cuts--we spent the money. I trust me to spend my money better than the Govt. I want more tax cuts.

On the other hand--what do I care, and why am I even in this conversation?

I got $300 from the Bush tax cuts, but Ken Lay got a much larger tax cut. Ken Lay likes Bush. I don't.

I always found it funny how Bush claims he cut taxes for all Americans. He did-----but I, like Explorer, got a measely $300 while the people who needed the tax cuts the LEAST, got the most. The people that needed them the MOST, got the least.

Rich people don't have to worry about health care, feeding their families, or sending their kids to good schools or college.

I also find it ironic that Bush and the Republican Congress are thought to be so strong on national defense, but wouldn't repeal $5000 of the tax cuts per rich person to pay for more inspections of cargo and containers at US shipping ports like the Democrats proposed.

I guess rich people maintaining $5000 of their huge tax cut is more important than inspecting cargo for nuclear weapons, WMD, etc that could potentially be brought into the country since only a fraction of those containers are now being inspected.

If you got back $300 from your income tax and if you are an "average driver" driving an "average car" car you paid the oil companies about $100-150 more a year over what you paid before Bush took office. If you have two cars drive a lot or have a gas guzzler double that. Redistribute the wealth gov-->you-->oil companies.

The US Dept of Labor under direction of the Bush administration reclassified hundreds of job classifications and titles. The most egregious example was reclassifying a fry cook at McDonalds from retail/service to manufacturing. Retail jobs are classified as lower paying than manufacturing, so the Bush administration "manufactured" thousands of new "high-paying" manufacturing jobs out of thousands of "low-paying" retail/service jobs.

People who defend Bush's job-creation record conveniently overlook the millions of jobs lost during his first 3 years in office. Should the Bush administration created a million and a half new jobs (he hasn't yet) it still would not equal the 2.5 million lost. In other words the Bush job creation policies are an abysmal failure. Bush will have the dubious distinction of having the worst job creation record of ANY U.S. President in history, including the Hoover/Coolidge administrations during the great depression.

One of the key points of supply-side/trickle down theory of economics is that the more capital available to the economy would create more growth and would create more jobs. Good theory. Bad practice.

It has become apparent to many economists that the driving force behind growth has a lot to do with M2 money supply, consumer demand and confidence and less to do with supply side/tax cut/trickle down economics

During the Clinton administration which saw the largest expansion of the economy in the History of the U.S., we saw consumer demand and the expansion of new economies driving growth. There were few if any tax cuts yet the economy grew at record levels. Compare this with the Reagan tax cuts which saw marginal growth and a small depression (leading to the election loss of Bush I) with several large tax cuts and an overhaul of the tax laws and the Bush II with gigantic tax cuts but little measurable effect on economic growth.

In fact growth has been largly attributable to the hugh numbers of housing growth and big ticket items such as cars which rely on LOW interest rates, not tax cuts.

What Bush I called voodoo economics promulgated by the Reagan administration doomed his reeelction.

George Dubya has not only given massive tax cuts to individual wealthy as opposed to the corporate wealthy, that this largesse will have little effect on job creation, wither short or long term.

These massive tax cuts and the Iraqi war and "war on terror" have combined to put the economy in a deficit status for the next decade.

The only way that the deficit can be reduced is either through massive sustained growth of 10 percent and above OR massive inflation. Remember a 3-5 percent increase in the inflation rate will effectivly halve the deficit inside of seven years.

Nobody (even the most confident supply-side economists and Fox News) forsees a sustainable growth of greater than 4-5 percent. But there is a growing cadre of economists who forsee double digit inflation should the deficit not come under control soon.

If you read the paper you will find that a lot of companies are not plowing cash back into their business, but instead, have large amounts of cash in hand. This bodes well for the companies in a high infaltion environment where they will not have to finance acquistions or expansion on leveraged or borrowed capital but can do it themselves (but at a lower or marginal rate). It does not bode well for long-term job creation.

In short, the Bush administration has put a lid on long term expansive job creation through it's abysmal handling of the economy. Corporate America knows this, but because of his policies, Corporations are cash rich and are in a good financial position to withstand a preciptous fall in the economy. This includes little job growth with the exception of a few areas.

No matter how you cut it, From the mishandling of the Iraqi war, or taking a robust expanding economy running at a surplus and driving into the ground through reckless largess to benefit the few, or the excessive lying and spinning the administration must resort to to justify it's action, the G.W. Bush administration should go down as one of the worst in U.S. history. And that doesn't even include the "social engineering" that the religious right havn't got to fully unleash on us due to this pesky terrorist Osama, the war on Saddam and all those lost jobs.

That is a legacy that only this administration deserves.

OG

Orgngrndr, excellent post. I was feeling very uncomfortable with the level of anti-Bush feelings
I felt was saturating the entire country and the dead heat the polls claimed.I was hopeful about a higher voter turnout but had seen no numbers. Your analyses was very helpful and heartening

Beachman, the statistics that you quote are hiding that included in there is pay for a handful of chief executives who are making millions of dollars per year, and thus raising the reported median income.

Just because Bill Gates got a raise this year doesn't mean that the Bush economic policy is helping me or you.

Explorer-

Jobs created in the last 12 months! How many jobs do you think have been created in the last 12 months for chief executives where they are making millions of dollars?

Using your arguement that the reported median income includes those executives that make millions of dollars....then the 744,000 jobs created in the last 12 months paying more than $559 a week ($13.98 an hour) (very few jobs were created paying million dollar salaries in the last 12 months)) must be even higher paying compared to the median income that includes the million dollar salaries that you point to that raise to median salary.

Orgngrndr said:

“People who defend Bush's job-creation record conveniently overlook the millions of jobs lost during his first 3 years in office.”

Your source has “conveniently overlooked” the millions created at the same time. When 2.3 million people leave one job, (not the same job, I hope) and get 2.3 million new jobs, they want to only refer to the “lost” jobs. It’s bullshit, and typical of the numbers games.

Alan Greenspan said it was "probably feasible" the economy would reach the Bush administration's forecast of adding 2.6 million jobs this year, provided growth continues and the productivity rate slows to more typically levels.

The point is many of the jobs lost are due to an increase in productivity. (Besides 9/11). I dumped three of nine positions in a business I have in the last couple years. The reason was low interest rates and cash on hand allowed me to re-invest money into more productive machinery. It is happening the world over more now than ever before outside of the 30's


And:
“The only way that the deficit can be reduced is either through massive sustained growth of 10 percent and above OR massive inflation. Remember a 3-5 percent increase in the inflation rate will effectivly halve the deficit inside of seven years”
Certainly not. While the growth in the GDP can offset spending (4-5 percent is awesome), and it has already, inflation can grow the deficit due to an increase on the interest on loans, and a loss in adjusted growth.
If Kerry was wise, he would predict rises in interest rates as they can only go up from here. Another way to control that deficit is reduce spending, something Bush would be wise to do.


And:
“If you read the paper you will find that a lot of companies are not plowing cash back into their business, but instead, have large amounts of cash in hand. This bodes well for the companies in a high infaltion environment where they will not have to finance acquistions or expansion on leveraged or borrowed capital but can do it themselves (but at a lower or marginal rate). It does not bode well for long-term job creation. “

The opposite is true in the majority of cases, and it does not represent what is truly happening now.

Companies do have cash, but we are not in a high inflation environment. Because of the low interest rates that are real and now, companies finance things in spite of cash on hand, to retain that cash. The last thing we’d want to do is spend cash when you can buy it cheap. The productivity is the obstacle, but has business grows the jobs will follow. Companies are slow to re-hire till absolutely necessary. They will work employees more hours first, or use part time help. This does not show up in job numbers.

Another note is the job numbers come from large companies employment reports, and completely overlook small businesses and the self employed. These numbers have risen very sharply to no credit.



(Message edited by rimnoj on August 04, 2004)

Orgngrndr also said:

“During the Clinton administration which saw the largest expansion of the economy in the History of the U.S., we saw consumer demand and the expansion of new economies driving growth. There were few if any tax cuts yet the economy grew at record levels.”

Great point, but the growth was in spite of the largest tax increase (on the middle class too)in history. It had nothing to do with taxes at all.

The gentleman who said stem cell technology can spark the next decade's growth had it right. I do not agree that Bush is stifling this , though.
Since when does the Fed Gov. do the industry thing well? The 90's was stimulated thru the home computer and then the internet, something the feds had a while and did nothing creative with as far as business is concerned.
It took a couple guys in the garage and the entrepreneur spirt to do this.

This is what freedom can do for a world. The same can happen with stem cells, hydrogen fuel vehicles, and those transporter things Captain Kirk used.

Rinmoj

the jobs loss and creation number came from our own U.S. Department of Labor. If you want to question the numbers of jobs loss under the Bush administration, I'm sure the Department of Labor would like your insight. The Bush administrations target numbers for job creations has missed its mark in virtually every quarter, causing the same administration to lower or revise it's expectations in every case. Of course you never hear about the adjustments, only the shrill trumpeting of " we are creating <this> jobs, and then downgrading the projection when it proves to be overoptimistic. Alan Greenspan office does not handle employment predictions, that job is out of it's pervue, and for the record his job projections are about as accurate as the Bush administrations.


The fact that the economy grew faster in spite of a tax increase enforces my point that supply side economics does not predicate growth as the trickledown theorist would want you to beleive. In almost every case supply side was ancilliary and not a major movement of economic growth.


We are mot in a high inflation environment...YET. But the Federal Reserve and Greenspan himself has warned that unless the deficit can come under control, unless there is some real government action to contain the deficit, inflationary pressure will ensue. This does not mean cutting taxes and financing a war at the same time.

It is also clear you have no idea on how the future cost of money is accrued and accounted. Inflation reduces the current value of investments. Inflation also devalues current debt carried foward. While inflation may add to current costs of borrowed money, It also devalues capital carried foward.

And finally, the Bush administrations political tampering with science has cost the country jobs and the loss of prestige. Few people are aware that scientists in this country cannot speak opr attend U.N or other sponsored world scientific congresses unless they have explicit approval from the Bush administration. The cannot endorse or publish research papers with any UN body unless it conforms to the Bush administration's narrow and politically constrained as well as unorthodox views. Sad but true. The U.S. is not only losing it's scientific leadership and repect among the nations of the world, under the Bush administration, it has started to become the laughingstock of the scientific world.


OG

Orgngrndr
The jobs loss and creation number came from our own U.S. Department of Labor is true enough, but you are still exaggerating the loss side, and ignoring the pluses not counted in the statistics referenced.

www.bls.gov This site is a good example of the government running something. It is pretty convoluted. Most of us would not buy anything sold this way on a web site.



You said:
“It is also clear you have no idea on how the future cost of money is accrued and accounted. “

That could be, I defiantly need to have explained to me what it has to do with the current situation, outside of companies preparing for any number of future possibilities.


“Inflation reduces the current value of investments. “

It reduces the value of cash on hand. It increase the value of goods on hand.


“Inflation also devalues current debt carried forward. “

I like when my debt carried forward is devalued. I am not the banker!


“While inflation may add to current costs of borrowed money, It also devalues capital carried foward. “

I don’t care about future borrowed monies. If I did borrow money in a high inflation market I could off set those interest losses by the raising value of my goods on hand.
I already mentioned cash on hand carried forward as being devalued. That’s why companies carrying cash now would not do this in a high inflation market.

Economics suck. I will say our economy is doing fabulous. And when you consider the attack on 9/11, the corporate scandals, the internet dot con men bubble burst, the war and supposed hatred from the entire world, it is amazingly strong. Dont forget the way the graphs were heading in 1999, and how the market was set to ank on tax day.
All the arrows are up, Better is coming.

Rimnoj

Dream On,

If you really believe that the economy is doing fabulously I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I would like to sell you. But I guess by watching to much Fox News will do that to you.

You are the exactly the voter that the Bush administration caters to.

I guess if you look at the mess that the Bush administration has created on it's own, we are not doing to bad!

Turd Polish.

The only reason the economy has not totally tanked is that the Federal Reserve has lowered the prime rate to record low levels and made so much money available so cheap that it has almost single-handedly kept the economy running.

With such low interest rates, the bond market is almost extinct, stocks are moribund and savings are non-existent. The plain fact is that most businesses are staying afloat only because they can get cheap money. There is little or no investment as most businesses are not sold on Bush-0-nomics, but have taken a wait-and-see atittude.

The debt loads on a lot of small businesses are so high that just a 2 percent increase in the prime rate will drive a lot of them out of business. And this is during an admiinistration that has already overseen the most small business bankrupcies in the history of the U.S.

You don't need to be a professor of mathematics or economics to deduct 2.5 million jobs lost from 1.5 million jobs created to now that that is a loss of a million jobs.

I think it was lost on most people that while they were listening to Dubya and his gang of Yahoos were trying to trump up the weapons of mass destruction debacle on the american public, while we were trying to find Osama bin Laden, while interest rate were sinking to new lows, that american businesses were laying off more than 2.5 million people. Now the Bush administration has lied so much it is now attempting to hide the fact that it is the first administration ever to have fewer jobs for the american people than it started off with.

The biggest joke came when the administration dusted off some old discredited economists who coined the word "jobless economic recovery" Much like " sleep management" or "detainee softening" or other buzzword used to describe torture of prisoners at Abu Ghaireb, if you make it sound innocuous, it can be sold that way.

If you want to dig a little deeper into our "fabulous economy" then look for the recent articles in the Wall Street Journal; that quoted an economist that stated if the housing market, new car sales and oil/energy sales were factored out of the economy, our real growth rate would be less that 1 percent. That is pretty disturbing at it comes from a paper that has never made it a secret that they are ardent supporters of the Bush administration.

If your supporters are saying that we are in deep doo-doo, your antagonists are being charitable in that you are only just stooopid and not criminally negligent.

OG






Bush sees recovery is just around the corner.

I guess if you think the economy is doing well, then you should vote for Bush. However, not even the President says the economy is doing well, his position is that it is in recovery.

So, anyone claiming the economy is doing well is out of the mainstream, off in their own little world.

Orgngrndr

Remain calm. Your name calling and temperament tips your hand, you ain’t holdin much!

“The only reason the economy has not totally tanked ...”

There are many, many more reasons. Continue to ignore them and you’ll stay happy, assured your course is just. The fed can’t just arbitrarily hold down rates. That is ridiculous. At least you believe the economy has not totally tanked. This is progress indeed. Kerry’s fairies said this is the worst economy since Herbert Hoover. I believe that economy tanked totally.


“The debt loads on a lot of small businesses are so high that just a 2 percent increase in the prime rate will drive a lot of them out of business.”

If and only if they continue to assume debt at the new rate, and are not able to offset it by any number of means. Jeewhizz. How could anyone stay in business with that much fear.



Back Then you said:
People who defend Bush's job-creation record conveniently overlook the millions of jobs lost during his first 3 years in office.
And now:
You don't need to be a professor of mathematics or economics to deduct 2.5 million jobs lost from 1.5 million jobs created to now that that is a loss of a million jobs.

More progress!! That didn’t hurt at all.



“...stated if the housing market, new car sales and oil/energy sales were factored out of the economy, our real growth rate would be less that 1 percent.”

Well, Except for my dick, tounge, fingers and toes, I have few ways to fuck his girl.



I am amazed that the higher oil costs - which effect far more than gasoline - steel costs, cement shortages and higher costs, liabilities insurance, growth of foreign economies etc. hasn’t taken it’s toll on us. It’s not all the Presidents fault, and to blame him based on flimsy foil and hatred is counter productive.

I suppose he says we are in recovery to acknoledge that there is quite a bit of room for improvement. Now, if he would get away from those scientists...

Rimnoj

Please re-read my comments. The last comment refers to Bush not You (rimnoj). I wasn't calling you anything except a Bush voter and a Fox News watcher. If you consider that an insult.. well, welcome to the club!

OG

So, John O'Neill has hit the lottery jackpot. O'Neill has made his living for over 30 years tearing down John Kerry, and now Kerry is the nominee, O'Neill is having his latest anti-Kerry book rushed to the printers.

My question is can we first review the President's performance over the last four years before the campaigns go down into the gutter and the candidates start calling each other names?

One obvious good thing over looked Bush did was sweep up Afghanistan. Sure there are problems, but there are problems in LA and Chicago as well.
President Gore or Kerry would not have even went there! There was no real attempt by Clinton even though he claims to identify Bin baby as a major threat and problem.
Remember how they on the left cried about the quagmire Afganny would be? How the USSR got licked and pulled out? How we need to go before winter cause they are tough in the cold and our guys can't handle that?
The mountains, the desert, Pakistan will attack (that worked out very well), all out Muslim war, North Korea will take advantage and on and on and on.

Kerry wouldn't have the resolve or the courage of his convictions to move forward aggressively.

We would be holding countless trails and fighting over extradition etcetera.

We wouldn't have the world wide cooperation we are getting as we would not be taken seriously.

We would have been hit again already. Kerry wants to say Bush has done nothing in three years to make us safer.
Then, whine about civil liberties and Ashcroft and , cry about the invasion of privacy and the Patriot Act. Piss and moan about the budget after federalizing the Airport security.

We've seen countless examples of defense of freedom, the mosque they popped yesterday a good one. We can't hear of most of the successes as it would undermine the tactics. Kerry would not stay focused in the heat of disagreement.

As far as the gutter goes, I can't see where the Dem's can complain after what we've heard this past three years.

The swift boat guys are going to really get rough on Kerry. I'm sure they will attempt to discredit them. Whatever. Look at motivation. Kerry has built his career on lies. He pushed it way too far with that cocky salute and endless referrals to his manhood.
No hero I know drones on about himself. Kerry is a phony. Bush is a cowboy. Ye ha!

McCain asks that the anti-Kerry group stop with the Vietnam ads:

"Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry’s military service “dishonest and dishonorable” and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.

advertisement

“It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me,” McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, referring to his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush."

<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5612836/>

Tell me again about the Bush war record?

Well, let's see what we have now.

Reasons to Vote for Bush:

1) Looks good in a cowboy or trucker hat
2) Invaded Afganistan*

Well, that's a good start. I'm not swayed to the Bush side quite yet, but I'm keeping an open mind.

_{*With Clinton's armed forces}

Most of us have a "single" issue they care about. Some folks vote exclusively because of the issue. I find that extreme.

Many are willing to accept a phoney because they think the other guy won't let them marry their brother or carve a nine month old out of their gut. They are willing to risk the rest of world, literally, so they can feel good about themselves.

Reason for Bush 3)

Bush will defend my right to own a gun. Kerry will not. Under a Kerry court, we could easily lose this right. One of you sarcastically said you'd get a gun to defend yourself against your OWN government. Well, of course, that is the first reason for the second amendment.

I will admit that irresponsible gun control is a large issue with me. Bush understands the intentions of the amendment, and will not waver.

Reason for Bush 4)

Will enforce the existing law, and is for Capitol punishment

Some one said Bush fried a retard in Texas. It makes no difference to me why a person is dangerous to society. Bush was enforcing Texas law. It is not up to the Governor to decide the law, but to enforce it.
Those of you who think Bush is too much swayed by his faith will be happy to note that the freakin Pope himself couldn't change the law or the enforcement there of.




And so, It's Clinton's Armed forces, but, not his corporate scandals, recession, deteriorating schools, Korean nuclear development, plot and plan to destroy the towers and allah knows what else he swept under the rug

As far as McCain goes, it pains any one who served to attack another. Seriously hurts. This has to be done.
McCain has always been supportive of any service, and not one to see bickering between men.

He is wrong about this being the same kind of deal. With all respect to McCain , he was not there with this man.

Why are Kerry supporters willing to let him build a career on his service, and yet turn a blind eye as to his true record and integrity?
You'll believe his band of bros and discount others as "political".

Why doesn't Kerry launch a Senate investigation to get to the truth?

Rimjoi,

It is amazing how you can attack, attack, attack, and yet offer but faint praise for the incumbent.

One obvious good thing over looked Bush did was sweep up Afghanistan. Sure there are problems, but there are problems in LA and Chicago as well. President Gore or Kerry would not have even went there!...
Pure speculation, but understandable coming from one of the Fox news sheep so easily led around by the collar by the Bush Administration.

Bush is a cowboy.
...when the lives of sons and daughters of others are on the line.

Many are willing to accept a phoney because they think the other guy won't let them marry their brother or carve a nine month old out of their gut. They are willing to risk the rest of world, literally, so they can feel good about themselves.
Typical mischaracterizations which expose your complete lack of understanding of opposing views. Baaaaa.

Bush will defend my right to own a gun. Kerry will not.
Crystal clear example of the above. Any legislation concerning weapons and you parrot the NRA line that they are coming to take your guns. NRA...baaaaaa.

Will enforce the existing law, and is for Capitol punishment...Some one said Bush fried a retard in Texas.
What a looney example, one of your top 4 reasons for voting for Bush is that he electrocuted someone from the short bus. OK....

Summary:
1. Bush in a cowboy hat turns you on
2. Bush invaded Afganistan while Kerry would not (although here we've expressed support for that invasion, but you confuse countries like you confuse terrorism, right?)
3. Democrats are coming to take my guns!!!
4. Frying retards is the manly thing to do

Nice list Rimjob...

...true record and integrity...

You mean like Bush's? There's still no definitive proof he fulfilled the Guard duty he got into because of his family connections.

Remember Doonesbury? (Oh yeah...you completely botched your recollection of the Kerry strips) Even a 10,000 reward couldn't flush out proof of Bush's service.

http://doonesbury.msn.com/strip/bush_guard.html

Rimnoj,

Please ellucidate Bush's record on Afghanistan, particularly his capture of Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban leaders.

Please tell us how "frying retards" will find Osama, get us out of Iraq, restore the economy, create jobs, and make me feel safe in my home.

Please tell us more of Bush's Vietnam War Record. It must be obviously better than John Kerry's, because it is the subject of many Republican attack dogs and your own accusations.

Please tell us about Bush's magnificent record as a private businessman, and how this business accumen, has strengthened the US economy.

Please tell us how many guns John Kerry has taken away from you, and how many extra rights the Patriot Act championed by George Bush has been given to us all.

While your at it please tell me how Bush engineered the great economic recovery this country is undergoing. You may also illuminate us on his job growth policies.

Tell us how much war-profiteering Halliburton will make due to the no-bid contracts approved by the Bush-(and the former CEO of Halliburton) Cheney administration.

Tell me how the Bush administration will turn Iraq into and maintain a democracy, a oasis of calm in a mideast turmoil, as it were, without the presence of 140,000 American Troops.

For extra credit, tell us all about the Bush "budget deficit plan" and how it will restore the budget surplus he was given when he took office.

Above all please explain to us where the "weapons of mass destruction" are? Where the nuclear weapons research plants are?

You may also explain this to my brother and 150,000 of his fellow soldiers on what the hell they are doing there.

It seems to you that Bush has all the answers and is a fabulous President. This is something I must have missed! Apperently I have not been watching Fox news every night.
Please enlighten us, Inquiring minds want to know!

We're all waiting!


OG

Can anyone explain Kerry missing 38 of 49 hearings as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the last eight years and voted to cut the Intelligence budget by 7.5 billion dollars. He has been AWOL 78% of the time concerning hearings that if he had been there he might have been able to share some of his great thoughts on he would have fought the war on terrorism.

And then he has the balls to salute and say " I am John Kerry and I am reporting for duty." Where the hell has he been the last eight years 78% of time when his country needed him doing the duty he swore to do!

D’retard

Your opinion means nothing to me as it is backed up by only your opinion, and you make no fucking sense. Having a similar mind set - based on history and facts on hand- as another doesn’t have to make one a sheep. You accountant types need to get out more.
Your kind of like a dog barking at me - lots of spit, bad breath and no fucking point to it. Bite me.

OG

Please tell me how Kerry will do better, he hasn’t been able too. The situation isn't perfect, there is plenty of trouble ahead.


Still, as I can't leave this room, I'll answer.


The effort in Afganny was a huge success, especially compared to the detractors thoghts. They are voting soon. Women and children in schools. Much better future, no terrorist camps. Osama and the Mullahs are dead, gone, silent whatever. There are still problems, but come on. I would love to return there soon, but it may not happen.


Frying criminals is about law and order. The rule of law is good, right?

Bush isn't lying, repeatedly, about his service.

Bush owed a baseball team, the never won it all, so what?

Kerry has voted for absolutely ever gun control law to come his way.

The economy we beat to death, and don't agree.

Haliburton crimes are a fantasy of the left.

Iraq will take time. certainly you are reasonable enough to see how important it is, and why those against us will fight so hard. Freedom will prevail.

You must consider the GDP when talking deficit. I hope he does better on spending in his second term. Surely the expense of being attacked is considered.

Would a rocket propelled grenade, like those sought in the recent Mosque arrest, qualify if it is aimed at your plane? Is it fair to believe sadam would sell them to those who want to kill us? Remember, he supported terror globally.

Few men serving do not know why.

I won't say Bush has all the answers. I disagree with much of his presidency. He is much better, however, than any reasonable expectation of Kerry could be.

Well, here is the unequivocal proof everyone has been waiting for. No need anymore to continue this argument:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," Bush said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

No kidding.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

Lots of humorous Bushims at the link above. There is a good one about him claiming to be a west Texas girl.

The guy has everything written for him and he STILL can't get it right. When he has to think on the spot when answering questions from reporters you can literally see the wheels turning in his mind desperately trying to come up with something, anything to say. He squints his eyes and it almost looks like he is about to pass gas.

"Haliburton crimes are a fantasy of the left. "

Halliburton just paid a $7 million fine, more coming.

When you are wrong, you are really wrong. Unfortunately, you seem to be wrong a lot.

What were they convicted of, exactly?

Mistakes happen. One way to know you've succeeded is by the number of lawsuits against you.
How the hell are they to know just how much it will cost to haul fuel in a freakin war zone that is unlike any other. That is one fucked up job.

Is the 7 million part of Cheney's responsibility when he was dealing with Clinton, and filling all those no bid contracts then?

Just who will President Kerry gets bids from?

I assume Halliburton will no longer be in business after this bombshell.

What is President Kerry going to do better?

5) No particular order

Laura Bush. Theresa is embarrassing.
If Kerry gets elected, he will feel an accomplished man, and dare buck with her on something. She is no Hilary, and will snap back.
They will eventually get divorced. That will be embarresing.

BTW, why did John get dumped by his first wealthy target?

"Mistakes happen" That's what everyone in the slammer says about their sentence.

Bottom line: Rimjoi said: "Haliburton crimes are a fantasy of the left. ", but was proven wrong. Now, just because Rimjoi was wrong once doesn't mean that he is wrong about everything he says. I have been wrong once or twice myself. The issue is whether Rimjoi can accept this and move on, or whether his role in this thread is to throw out wild accusations, ignore when they are disproven and continue to just make shit up when the beer gives him a buzz.

BTW, I understand that the Bush quote is real, that the White House never rests in thinking up ways to harm the USA or some such. Funny.

Oddly enough these political threads have become my favorite on this website. I thank all you guys who apparently have paid close attention to the issues and communicate you points well. I think it bodes well that an
obviously self-obssesed group like whore mongers are so well informed. Except for Rimnoj and Beachman I'm amazed that as a group we seem so reasonable to one another. I take my hat off to folks like dripper who enter the lions den to voice an opposing view with integrity and respect. As for the others I've mentioned by name I think we can see there arguments as prologue to the next three months. As the current administration's criminality gets dragged more and more into the bright light of day we can expect them to respond in the same way our own ditto-heads do, with venom and poorly digested facts. There is absolutely no way anyone can tell what's going to happen but a thick skin and a clear head seems essential to get by.
Thanks again guys and to coin a phrase "Don't let the Bastards get you down"

Rimnoj

You seem to forget Kerry is (not Yet anyway) the President of the United States, Bush is. Kerry can do no worse, but Kerry will work WITH the UN. Kerry will bring in foreign troops who will do just a good a job as the US will.

All you seem to parrot is that Kerry will not do better, or Kerry will not do this. You back it up with no facts, no rationale.

You seem to be afraid that if Kerry wins, the brute squad will come and take away your gun. I have seen no such proclivity in any actions, deeds or votes of Sen. Kerry. It seems to be an irrational fear on your part.

The only success in Afghanistan is eliminating the Taliban as the government in that country. While the U.S. Patrols and controls the major cities, The outlying rural areas are still lawless and Anti-american. The practice of growing and harvesting poppies to produce heroin has started up again and is stronger than ever, a record harvest is expected this year due to the introduction of severl dozen John Deere tractors given to the Afghan people on behalf of the US and then dissapeared, onyt to pop up again photgraphed harvesting heroin poppies.

Whereis Osama?? He started this thing. Bush hasn't caught him, and is apparently no closer to capturing him, Dead or Alive.

Wasn't HE responsible for 9/11. Thanks to a massive diversion of armed forces to satisfy a personal vendetta, we are still troubled by the leader of Al-Queda.

Special Forces have discovered and destroyed several terrorist training sites in Afghanistan, so yes, they are still there and still training terrorists.

Bush never lied about his service?? During his run for Governor he was caught doing the very same thing and had to issue a "revision" when confronted with the truth.

OH yeah Bush HAS NO WAR RECORD. He ducked out of the vietnam war by getting special priveledges, he then boasted about this to his Harvard professor.

Bush was a minority owner of a baseball team. He never antied up any money for his "ownership stake" but was given the stake through his political connections. During his stint as managing partner, he traded away Sammy Sosa. When the Rangers were sold. Dubya share was about 50 mill. money he used to finance his run for Governor. All of Bush previous business ventures failed or lost money. This is no secret and is well documented.

There have been very few Gun control laws come before the Senate in the last 20 years. The most prominent being the Brady Bill and the bill to ban automatic weapons. I'm sorry you have to wait 3 days now to get a gun, but it is still more trouble to get a drivers license than to get a gun. And I'm sorry you cannot buy a mac-10 or thompson sub-machine gun or a AK. You'll just have to get a collectors license to get one of those. How many "collector licenses are there?? how about 2 million. The fact is that anyone with no criminal record can apply and most likely recieve a collectors license which will then allow them to apply to get a permit for an automatic weapon, unless you are already exempted by about 40 other laws. All those republicans who voted for the Brady Bill should be shot too.

You think the economy is going fabulously. Well the several million who were laid off during the Bush administration may take issue with you there. Are you better off than you were before Bush took office. Eight out of ten people surveyed in a recent Gallup poll said no.


You can sit there until eternity and won't convince me that Iraq is necessary. YOU do not have to fight it an obviously have no relatives there so you can smugly say "Yeah, GO Usa" and not have somebody shoot back. We had better hurry upand solve the Iraqi problem as most of my brothers regiment (65 %)are out of the army after the enlistments are up.

Thnks to Bush. The army will finally live up to its advertising; "An Army of One" as that's they will all have left.

If you are an NCO expect to be offered around 10-30k to re-enlist. This is a bump of about 200 percent. Dubya and Rumsfeld have gutted the moral out of all the front line units by keeping them in a situation that is ultimatly unwinable.

Clint Eastwood in "Heartbreak Ridge" summed it all up: "An A-1 clusterfuck"

You are wrong. I fail to see the importance of going to war with Iraq. Apparently most of the U.S's allies and the U.N failed too also.

I'm afraid Freedom for Iraq will not be as the US sees it. Freedom for Iraq will be their version, which will mostly be a Islamic Republic as soon as the US troops leave.

If you want to keep a few hundred thousand U.S. troops around to defend "democracy" and as target practice for a guerilla war, well just remember how succesful Vietnam was.

As for Halliburton, A senior Republican Senator chastised his Senate commitee last week when they refused to back a special prosecutor to examine abuses in Halliburton and Brown and Root contracts. He mentioned that there is so much evidence on fraud and abuse, trying to submarine investigations in commitee, it was akin to "bailing out the Titanic"

"their's not to reason why, their's but to do or die" --These words may be reflect an unreasonable attitude the generals in the British army had towards their soldiers who were ordered into a horrific massacre, but todays army soldier expects to be led by a competent, experienced and well trained officer corp. That they lay their life on the line to defend their country. They ask no more than their commander-in-chief be as competant.

Unfortunatly now because of Iraq and the lies and deciet the Bush administration has pulled on everbody, many soldiers realize that this is not true.

Your defense of the Bush record on any subject is so poor, it defies logic. Like the Iraqi Information Minister, you seem to live in a fantasy world, oblivious to all that is going on around him. At least the Iraqi Information Minister was preaching mostly fellow iraqi's who probably new better as bombs flew all around them. We should too.

OG

"That's what everyone in the slammer says about their sentence. "

Criminals. Right?

Again
"What were they convicted of, exactly? "

Nothing about the no bid fantasy, as if this the only time in history that this had happened.

Any proof that Bush / Cheney are receiving money under the table for the pleasure?

How rich did they get? Is there something wrong with corporate profits?

Where was the Hallibashing during Clinton's time?

There are plenty of accusations, unsubstantiated, about Haliburton. It's a joke.\


6)
Bush will put people first.

Not the snail darter, not the spotted owl.

He won’t bow to a liberal wacko scientist who takes fur from a penned lynx in a D.C. zoo, and puts it on a fence in Washington State, in order to claim they exist in a National park, and get the park shut off from humans. Never mind that if they did exist there, they are doing this with the humans already.

I love the outdoors, Reasonable, respectful, management is key to enjoyment.

I am a tree hugger. My version is using that tree for cover. I trapped for years, and improved habitat and feed along the way. We can harvest our renewable resources and still have them for later.

Kerry would protect to death.