Us presidential election 2004

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]

so how about anti-Kerry groups like swiftpets?

anyone wonder what wil happen on friday's debate? maybe Bush will come up with Cheney-esque answers?

What the !?!?!?!?!?

All I said was that Cheney said factcheck.com and it is supposedly be factcheck.org. Furthermore, factcheck.com redirects you to georgesoros.com and on that main page is anti-bush stuff. So, Cheney by accident promoted a site that is anti-bush on national (cable) television....

EDIT!!!!

[ralphwiggum 6]

hmmm..guess i misoverestimated billy's post.

[FSPilot 0]

They should pay at least as much percentage-wise as normal families, preferably much more.

They do.

Whats that gotta do with votes cast by Kerry? And on who's watch has the US experienced it's biggest intelligence failures?

Goes to show that cutting the military/intelligence budget as a quick fix to the economy isn't always the smartest idea.

Bush's, if you look at the immediate picture.  But the intelligence failure was brought on by the long term effects of the intelligence budget cut by, you guessed it, Clinton.

Care to prove that?

It's common knowledge.  They earn more so they pay more income tax.  Anybody who knows anything about the US tax system knows that there are tax brackets, meaning you pay a different amount depending on how much you earn.  Rich people end up paying more than (relatively) poor people.

[Frisbee 0]

They do.

Then why did they get a bigger tax cut then all the other brackets?

[FSPilot 0]

They do.

Then why did they get a bigger tax cut then all the other brackets?

Because they pay more than other families.

[Bernadotte 0]

erm... Cheney said go to factcheck.com to get the real facts about halliburton... he actually promoted a site that is anti-bush...

Oh I see.  I actually thought you personally had something against George Soros.  Glad to find out that's not the case.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]But the intelligence failure was brought on by the long term effects of the intelligence budget cut by, you guessed it, Clinton.

Apparently you missed my post (and history).

The intelligence budget and community was originally gutted by Carter. It has never returned to the level it was pre-Carter. Reagan, and Bush Sr. also did cuts while boosting "technological" assets like satillites and the like, adn that trend continued through Clinton. Bush Jr. did nothing to rectify the situation, nor was there a belief that something had to be done. It wasn't until post-9/11 that people looked at the intelligence community and thought "Oh. Well I guess satillites aren't good for everything." Only then was the human intelligence again considered necessary.

Quote[/b] ]Because they pay more than other families.

Dollar wise yes.

Generally, if you look at percentage wise and include assets and future wage earning, the rich pay a far smaller percentage than poorer families. The burden is indeed on the poor and the middle class.

Think of it this way. The rich don't get to buy an extra summer home. The poor get no health coverage or have trouble putting food on the table.

[DanAK47 1]

Quote[/b] ]the rich pay a far smaller percentage than poorer families

Source?

All I have been able to find says the opposite.

Google "tax brackets".

I really have no idea WTF I am talking about when it comes to this, though.

[xawery 0]

They do.

Then why did they get a bigger tax cut then all the other brackets?

Because they pay more than other families.

This is illogical. First you say that 'the rich' pay more tax, implicitly according to the concept of 'stronger shoulders bearing more burden'. Then you throw that concept out of the window by saying that we should give them more money back because they paid more in the first place.

Let's look facts in the face: it's the rich getting richer, the middle class getting poorer, and the poor... well, hell, they're poor, so just screw them, right? Probably their own fault, damn lay-abouts...

I would really like to see how Bush would fare in 'real life', i.e. without a family fortune to rely on.

[billybob2002 0]

Some Kerry supporters show their love for democracy....

http://www.wisgop.org/view.phtml?func=ch&lg=&id=83

Quote[/b] ]

PRO-KERRY FORCES INVADE GOP VICTORY CENTER

Oct 5th, 2004

(MILWAUKEE) – More than 50 demonstrators supporting Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry stormed a Republican campaign office in West Allis at mid-day today, trespassing, creating a disturbance through the use of a bullhorn in the office and then refusing to leave when asked.

The Chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin (RPW) condemned the action by Kerry supporters, and asked the Kerry campaign and the Democrat Party of Wisconsin to do the same.

“Do John Kerry and Wisconsin Democrats really believe this is conduct becoming of a presidential candidate and his campaign?†RPW Chairman Rick Graber asked. “It is unfortunate that Team Kerry feels the need to engage in such childish and obnoxious behavior.

“The President and his campaign will continue to talk about the issues in Wisconsin,†Graber added. “Let’s hope that someday soon, the Kerry campaign and Wisconsin Democrats will join us and put an end to this foolishness.â€

Graber called the latest incident part of a disturbing trend of criminal conduct by anti-Bush forces in Wisconsin, pointing to an incident in Madison last week in which Bush-Cheney yard signs were stolen from the yards of three homes. The vandals then used chemicals to burn swastikas into the lawns of the homes, which were within a two-block radius of one another.

In addition, reports of stolen, defaced and damaged Bush-Cheney campaign signs are surfacing throughout Wisconsin.

“Our volunteers, from children to the elderly, have every right to feel safe when they are working on behalf of a cause and candidates they believe in,†Graber commented. “This type of thuggish, intimidating conduct is absolutely unacceptable. It is time for John Kerry, the Wisconsin Democrat party, and Kerry’s campaign leaders, including Gov. James E. Doyle, to put a stop to this shameful behavior.â€

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]the rich pay a far smaller percentage than poorer families

Source?

All I have been able to find says the opposite.

Google "tax brackets".

I really have no idea WTF I am talking about when it comes to this, though.

I can't strictly be sure I am correct on reading this, as I'm no fiscal master but look at these two sites:

Bush Tax Cuts

First you will notice that the Bush tax cuts unquestionably helped the rich more than the poor and the middle class.

Second, under your google search you should have found any number of articles about the rich getting richer.

Quote[/b] ]The first study shows that in 2000 the wealthiest 400 taxpayers in the United States accumulated nearly $70 billion in adjusted gross income. That marked 1.1 percent of total AGI versus 0.5 percent in 1992.

Members of this elite group had AGI of at least $86.8 million, a big increase from $67.4 billion in 1999. The IRS did not say how much income the No. 1 filer had.

Though its share of total reported AGI more than doubled, the group's share of the total tax burden grew at a slower pace. The group's share of the tax burden grew to 1.6 percent from 1.04 percent in 1992. The average tax rate for the group, meanwhile, declined to 22.3 percent in 2000, from 26.4 percent in 1992 and a high of 29.9 percent in 1995.

Had President Bush's latest tax cuts been in effect in 2000, the amount of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans would have dropped an additional 20 percent, according to analysis by the New York Times.

Quote[/b] ] * The 60 percent of taxpayers in the middle income quintile and below would receive less than 8 percent of the total tax cuts. Their average tax reduction would be only $138 a year.

* The best-off tenth of all taxpayers would receive 69 percent of the tax reductions, and get an average annual tax cut of $7,600.

* The best-off one percent of taxpayers--those making more than $301,000-- would get an average tax reduction of more than $46,000 a year.

Next, as for the difference between the rich and the poor and taxes, one has to look at the loopholes, tax shelters, and other little tid-bits the rich can use, but the poor can't (or truthfully, have no need for).

For example, that Hummer that you see drivin' down the road and guzzling gas and spewing pollution, can be written off on taxes by the rich, under a law that was meant to help farmers. Any SUV or truck can. The rich basically had to pay little for the vehicle.

The same for planes and boats. In my Flying magazine a Cessna ad tells all to hurry and buy their Citation before the tax season ends.

And don't get me started on "tax shelters."

Relating to the difference between rich and poor:

Quote[/b] ]Eliminating the estate and the gift tax is the most alarming feature of the proposed tax cuts. In the U.S. tax system, capital gains income, the income from the appreciation of assets such as stocks, bonds, OR real estate, is not taxed until the income is "realized," that is, until the assets are sold. If an asset is held until the owner dies, the gain in the value of the asset is never subject to any tax, except the estate tax. There are many wealthy people whose income is made up entirely of gains in stocks and real estate. They could make millions or billions of dollars and pay no tax if they don't sell any of these assets. They could die and their heirs would get it all without any federal taxes ever paid. This is how most of the super rich make their money and without a federal estate tax the super rich will definitely get richer.

Tax Analysis

But I am actually with you, since I don't know shit about half of this. What I do know, from personal observation, is that poor and middle class (me) are far more affected by tax payments, and refunds than the rich (my parents).

[Akira 0]

http://www.wisgop.org/view.phtml?func=ch&lg=&id=83

Please post an actual news site rather than the Wisconsin Republican web site, a biased would you not agree, source.

Besides I keep getting "Timed out"

[shinRaiden 0]

The picture posted below is from the Wisconsin journal Sentinal

(http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/oct04/laura2100504.jpg)

This is the same organizations I referred to earlier about the Orlando office invasion. So now that I've found a source that doesn't rhyme with sludge or that you are biased against their bias, does it now 'exist'?

[billybob2002 0]

I wonder what that guy is thinking...

[shinRaiden 0]

Considering that there is a camera on the right and in his face and likely on the left as well, there's not a whole lot he can do, except hold on to the chair.

[Akira 0]

So now that I've found a source that doesn't rhyme with sludge or that you are biased against their bias, does it now 'exist'?

I didn't say it didn't exsist for one. I just said (and has been said a thousand times) that its better to post something from a news source rather than something that has GOP or DNC in the address/title.

And thats a pretty hilarious picture by the way.

Course I think they are all A)idiots or B)really pissed off.

[Balschoiw 0]

At least they don´t look like the rampaging mob the article makes them look like.

Freedom !

I like this initiative though. They show style and grace:

Billionaires for Bush

Check out the page...nah not you billybob, it will only confuse you, but all those liberal commie asses should have a look

[denoir 0]

Heh, not a bad page Bals

George W. Bush: An Owner's Manual

Quote[/b] ]

Congratulations on your purchase of "Dubya," the President of the United States, 2000-2004 model.* This release incorporates significant improvements on the earlier Bush model:

- simpler vocabulary/worldview

- increased pugnaciousness

- less sensitivity to public opinion

- more fun to have beer with

- does not require reading of lips

- does remove Saddam

- does not speak French

*Dick Cheney (purchased separately) required for operation.

TURNING YOUR PRESIDENT ON

Should the enclosed puppy, baseball game, apple pie, charming sorority wife or pretzel stick fail to start the president, try any of the following: NASCAR, Horses, the American Flag, a freshly cut check.

TURNING YOUR PRESIDENT OFF

Any of the following: Political debate, compound sentences, nuanced arguments, polling places.

LIST OF FEATURES

- Shifts tax burden from unearned to earned income.

- Declares wars (requires three weeks notice) and instigates smaller miscellaneous conflicts.

- Nominates at least one reactionary Supreme Court judge.

- Slices, dices and squelches information.

- Alienates nearly all historical allies.

- Converts budget surpluses into record-setting deficits.

- Polarizes public opinion.

ACTION FIGURE FUNCTIONS:

Fighter Pilot - Accessories: Aircraft carrier, flight-suit & cod-piece (not included).

Cowboy - Horse, cowboy hat, boots & jeans, wistful determined look in eye (included).

MODES:

Tax cutting mode

Indicated by: Creased brow, lowered eyelid, clenched jaw, broken intermittently by nod and wink to rich friends. Found most often during campaign stops and fund-raisers, usually in conjunction with unsubstantiated promises of job growth.

Indignant self-righteous mode

Indicated by: Threats, references to sacrifice, heroism, God, and bravery; generally followed by invasion of sovereign nation.

Cowboy mode

Indicated by: Chip on shoulder; increase in swagger and bravado. "Bring 'em on!" Can also be followed by invasion of sovereign nation.

Vacation mode

(Will revert to vacation mode if left alone more than one day.) Indicated by: Proximity to Texas or Maine.

Frat Boy mode

(This mode has been discontinued.)

REMOTE OPERATION:

Can be operated remotely from bunker or other undisclosed location. (This model not meant to operate autonomously.)

TROUBLESHOOTING:

Should any of the following occur, IMMEDIATELY contact Karl Rove at the 24 Hour Support Hotline:

--LANDS ON AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER

--DECLARES END OF HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR

--APPEARS IN PUBLIC WITHOUT PREPARED TEXT

--SQUANDERS SYMPATHY OF ENTIRE WORLD WITHIN TWO YEARS OF VICIOUS TERRORIST ATTACK

This is a profit-motivated president. In the event of prolonged inaction, fill with campaign contributions (coin slot located in rear).

PROPER CARE OF YOUR PRESIDENT:

DO NOT expose to network news outlets (other than Fox).

SHIELD your president from:

the media (unless extensively coached and supervised), bright light, facts, press conferences, demonstrations, sudden changes in cultural climate.

AVOID all contact with:

books (except Westerns, picture books and comics)

the middle classes (except for campaign appearances)

ACCESSORIES TO YOUR PREZ:

Flacks, yes-men, and neocons

Miniature VHF aural canal receiver chip, tuned to Karl RoveÄ…s matching transmitter

Segway scooter (discontinued)

Ranch

One wife

Two daughters

Chain saw

Look for these other fine Presidential Products:

Ronald Reagan Dogmatizer & Original Non-Stick Fryer

Herbert Hoover Wealth Concentrator & Juicer

Richard Nixon Polarizer & Paranoia Ionizer

Warren Harding Prohibition Profiteer & Martini Shaker

WARRANTY:

With proper care, your President will, during a four year term, fulfill the previously specified actions and duties. This warranty is completely null and void in event of the following:

Weapons of Mass Destruction never materialize in his lifetime.

Electoral college is eliminated.

Ralph Nader drops out of race.

Dick Cheney dies of heart attack or lack of soul.

The polar ice caps melt.

[Blake 0]

Maybe this could be used to fuel new rhetorics then: "You know, the man had secret fantasies of nuclear weapons. No wonder the inspectors didn't find what we found: The WMDs were hidden in his head all the time!"

Hopefully Bush and co. will face the facts for once, this the WMD claims are getting more ridiculous all the time. They were flimsy at best in the first place. My support for the war was not based on those claims, now that they maintain this smokescreen which they used to attract support makes them look complete idiots. But they'll admit the errors only after elections that's how it works always everywhere.

But leaving Iraq aside completely, I wonder why would anybody vote Bush, on his watch US economy has taken a serious downturn as Denoir pointed out. In any country such poor performance would be a political disaster.

So I would really like to know why Bush-supporters on these forums will vote for him from a standpoint of US internal affairs and economy? Are there really concrete domestic reasons other than 'War president' rhetorics? Please educate me on these issues.

[billybob2002 0]

It seems factcheck.org is very slow....damn you, Cheney!!!!

Quote[/b] ]So I would really like to know why Bush-supporters on these forums will vote for him from a standpoint of US internal affairs and economy?

Lets see... gay marriage... against...but for civil unions (all the legal rights has marriage but no adopt...).

Lets see... affirmative action... hmmm... it should be temporary not a fix....

Lets see..... economy..... the "bad" economy has not hit me so... NA

Lets see.... education.... hmm... no comment (it is not bad)

Lets see.... one reason I'm not voting for Kerry.... he talks about all these promises and he knows he cannot do majority of them without creating a even bigger deficit....I thought he was going to tell the truth....  What programs are you going to cut in to...

Edit: internal...

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ] Lets see... gay marriage... against...but for civil unions (all the legal rights has marriage but no adopt...).

Not for in the least. Cheney maybe but he keeps it quit, but ol' Bush has slung the "against God" bit around a few times.

FYI, Kerry/Edwards are for civil unions.

Quote[/b] ]Lets see... affirmative action... hmmm... it should be temporary not a fix....

Kerry is anti-affirmative action, and has been criticized for his affirmative action comments. According to one news item, Kerry could not be counted on in the fight for affirmative action. He has backed away from those comments a bit.

Quote[/b] ]Lets see..... economy..... the "bad" economy has not hit me so... NA

Don't worry. It will when you actually enter the real world. Then perhaps your tune will change.

And fyi, going into the military won't help. You ever notice how much they get paid?

Quote[/b] ]

Lets see.... one reason I'm not voting for Kerry.... he talks about all these promises and he knows he cannot do majority of them without creating a even bigger deficit

Sure. Why not vote for the one that has already DRASTICALLY overblown the budget and deficit.

That makes absolutely no damn sense. Course I expect that.

Quote[/b] ]I thought he was going to tell the truth.

So vote for the PROVEN liar (or should I start digging up Daily Show clips again?). Once again. You make no damn sense.

Quote[/b] ]What programs are you going to cut in to

And once again, vote for the guy that has slashed education, upped healthcare, etc. etc.

You do make sense occasionally right?

Quote[/b] ]Lets see.... education.... hmm... no comment (it is not bad)

Given some of your answers so far, "No comment" seems your best choice. I think you have already made a strong case against the education system.

"No Billybob Left Behind". Course that will probably just fail like the present one.

Billybob. Just do us ALL a favor and admit that you are voting for Bush because he has an R attached to his name, because its OBVIOUS you need to look at this website again. From what you said you should be voting Kerry.

EDIT: Wrong "tune"

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Lets see.... education.... hmm... no comment (it is not bad)

From my experience, public education is bad, but the poor quality I'm referring to is not related to funding. My gripe is with the moronic policies that schools have, such as teaching "Whole Math" (A program that, among other things, teaches children that math varies upon your skin color). Forget giving them more funding, the public education system needs reforms so that the school system actually teaches useful subjects such as practical, applicable math. I was thoroughly underwhelmed by my experience with "Whole Math",  especially the unit on how ancient Aborigines measured their grass huts, and the staggeringly ineffecient long division that was taught (Which was basically a combination of Tic-Tac-Toe, mathematical voodoo, and playing "Cross The Boxes").

Studies also show that the average student's self esteem is going up, while the usefullness of his education and his likelihood of graduation go down. Basically, the public school system tries to teach America's children how to be stupid and proud of it. The system needs reform, but Kerry wants to pump more money into it and then hope for the best, even though that hasn't worked before.

And Kerry also opposes vouchers, even for non-religious private schools. Of course he can't let inner-city students have a shot at a private-school education: There would be a dangerous risk that those students would become successful and then *GASP* become Republicans. Plus those students going to private schools would have low self-esteem and they wouldn't learn Mexican math.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Kerry is anti-affirmative action, and has been criticized for his affirmative action comments. According to one news item, Kerry could not be counted on in the fight for affirmative action. He has backed away from those comments a bit.

If that is the case, then why is Jesse Jackson and co. are supporting him?

Quote[/b] ]

Don't worry. It will when you actually enter the real world. Then perhaps your tune will change.

And fyi, going into the military won't help. You ever notice how much they get paid?

I'm actually very cheap...bah.. At least, I will not have burden of having to pay for loans after graduation... and no, my parents did not get loans to pay for my education....

Quote[/b] ]

So vote for the PROVEN liar (or should I start digging up Daily Show clips again?). Once again. You make no damn sense.

hmm... Kerry is a PROVEN liar too... your point...

Quote[/b] ]

And once again, vote for the guy that has slashed education, upped healthcare, etc. etc.

You do make sense occasionally right?

Come on!!! You know various factors upped heathcare and not just the TBA. Slashed education falls in to the state's laps (a factor) also.

Quote[/b] ]

Billybob. Just do us ALL a favor and admit that you are voting for Bush because he has an R attached to his name, because its OBVIOUS you need to look at this website again. From what you said you should be voting Kerry.

Interesting that Kerry supports rolling back cuts for people making over $100,000... does this include families? If so, another reason not supporting Kerry...

Quote[/b] ]I was thoroughly underwhelmed by my experience with "Whole Math",  especially the unit on how ancient Aborigines measured their grass huts, and the staggeringly ineffecient long division that was taught (Which was basically a combination of Tic-Tac-Toe, mathematical voodoo, and playing "Cross The Boxes").

Thank god that my high school math was not that....

[denoir 0]

Lets see... gay marriage... against...but for civil unions (all the legal rights has marriage but no adopt...).

I think that's one of the biggest problem with Kerry/Edwards domestic policy. They're trying to appeal both to their liberal base as well as getting votes from the religious right.

On the other hand their position is consistent with what a majority of the US public wants - restrictions and conditions, not a constitutional amendment.

And while I think in 30 years they'll be ashamed of the position they currently have (just like today people are ashamed of the government sponsored racial segregation 30 years ago), Bush-supporters will certainly have more to be ashamed of. Look at the long term trend. I agree with Cheney when he says "freedom means freedom for all". 30 years ago racially mixed marriages were controversial. How would you feel about people that 30 years ago suggested a constitutional amendment forbidding them?

Quote[/b] ]Lets see... affirmative action... hmmm... it should be temporary not a fix....

While I'm in principle against any discrimination, positive or negative, given America's historical context with slavery, its deeply rooted social inequalities, affermative action may be the only way to dig your way out of the whole you are in.

And from what I can see from the Kerry website, that's basically his position as well. He recognizes that it's not a good solution and that it keeps America thinking in racial terms, but that it is needed to get somewhere.

Quote[/b] ]Lets see..... economy..... the "bad" economy has not hit me so... NA

Oh, but it will. When you will be paying back the deficit through taxes, then you will feel it. You are in a big fiscal hole and you have pay up sooner or later. The only way that can be paid for is through taxes (as it happens to be the only income of the state). Guess who will be paying back that?

Quote[/b] ]Lets see.... education.... hmm... no comment (it is not bad)

"Bad" is a relative term. It is better than in some third-world countries. Relative Europe for instnace, it is really really terrible. There are some really good private schools in America, but they are reserved for only the very bright students (who can get some form of scholarship) or for the ones that can afford it. The broad majority on the other hand (public schools and lower end private schools) have an extremely poor general education.

As for vouchers - sure, in principle, but that assumes that you already have a working public school system. It is utterly irresponsible to be taking money from the public schools - that are available to all and supposed to have some basic level of quality - and dumping them into private schools. The freedom of choosing schools is good, but the state must be able to guarantee a minimum level of education for all its citizens. And in the US, the public school system is broken. It needs more teachers and it needs a much higher quality of education. That costs money and that's money you won't have if you start with the vouchers system.

Quote[/b] ]Lets see.... one reason I'm not voting for Kerry.... he talks about all these promises and he knows he cannot do majority of them without creating a even bigger deficit....I thought he was going to tell the truth.... What programs are you going to cut in to...

Unlikely. Democrats tend to be fiscally more responsible. He'll most likely tax you more - but you have to realize that the deficit is something you'll have to pay one way or another.

It is however also possible to do it without significantly raising taxes across the board. Clinton showed that you can increase funding for schools, medicare, social security without creating a deficit and without taxing the hell out of everything that moves.

What Bush has to offer is "stay the course", i.e continue the economic downward spiral, while weakining education, medicare, social security etc

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Thank god that my high school was not that....

That was my middle school. You can see what a firm base it provided for my high school years .

Quote[/b] ]It is utterly irresponsible to be taking money from the public schools

There's nothing irresponsible here. You just take the $7000 being wasted on the public school education and let the student have it to help pay for what's left after scholarships to a private school. It should be the student's choice how he spends that $7000 on his education. That $7000 does not belong to the public school in his area, it is not the "school's money". It is the student's money, and it should be his choice where it goes.