Us presidential election 2004

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hey Billybob, since you seem equally concerned about the issues and equally upset about the negativity, tell me, what is it about Bush that brings him your support?

What have you seen him do for the country in the last four years that makes you want to give him his job back for another four?

I'm truly interested in why people want to vote for this man, I just can't fathom anyone thinking he has done a good enough job to deserve re-election.

Also, your support on the flip-flopping thing was hardly substantial.  Kerry reversed his opinion on affirmative action after 12 years?  Do you feel exactly the same about everything you believed in 12 years ago?

How about the fact that less than four years ago, Bush adamantly expressed his belief the United States should not engage in nation building?

That's one hell of a big flip.

You second quote has Kerry initially criticizing the first President Bush's interests in GW1 and saying he didn't think the coalition organized would hold together over the strength of those interests, and then later saying he applauded Bush for putting together an international coalition before acting.  Not exactly a flip flop.

How about George Bush the second saying he would "leave no child behind" and then approving the cutting of funding to that program thus leaving many children behind to the outrage of educators across the nation?

There is a giant flop.

The thing is, ALL politicians change their position on various issues over time, even your beloved President Bush.  They change them as circumstances change and I would expect them to.  The ability to change your mind, grow in your knowledge and adjust your opinion to what you have learned or adapt with changing circumstances is a fundamental and crucial aspect of the human condition.  It insures our ability to learn, adapt and survive, to develop and perservere and to achieve the things we have achieved.  I don't see why that quality, the ability to change one's mind or grow one's opinion is characterized as negative by Republicans even when they do it themselves.  How can maintaining a narrow-minded and unflinching worldview and insisting on retaining a stance even though that stance is failing terribly, and then refusing to apologize when that failure becomes obvious to everyone be seen as strength of character?

The fact that the President doesn't change his mind and doesn't admit mistakes frankly scares the hell out of me and is a larger part of the reason I'm voting for Kerry.

I hate to sound like an ass but my has life improve since 4 years ago. The economy has not effect my living and have more stuff that I want. Furthermore, the economy is improving and the majority of jobs are not going overseas but staying here. Sure Bush has made mistakes but at least he holds his ground. I agree with his partial-birth abortion ban (It should be limited but not banned (abortion), imho); a little with his affirmative action stance (I think it should be of system of economics or change it some because the current system is messed up); and etc. However, I do not agree with his free amnesty to illegals and not tighting up the border, not really taking care of the deficit and etc. Sure I want the US image improved overseas and I think he can (if he tries).

Four years ago, I wanted Gore to win but somehow Bush won me over after he got elected. I cannot explain it but something click that told me he was a ok person. I even made a bet that Gore will win...  

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=225

Quote[/b] ]

Kerry Blames Corporate Tax Code for Shipping Jobs Overseas

But economists say "outsourcing" jobs overseas is a minor problem that Kerry's plan wouldn't do much to fix.

July 28, 2004

Modified: July 28, 2004

Summary

A Kerry ad released July 20 returns to a theme he and his Democratic allies have been pushing for months: a claim that tax incentives to locate jobs overseas is a big problem that is Bush's fault and that Kerry promises to fix.

Kerry's latest ad -- all positive -- paints his tax fix as the centerpiece of a plan to create jobs -- the "lifeline for America's families." The negative side, blaming Bush, has been seen earlier in ads such as a Media Fund spot first aired last March saying "Bush's policies have encouraged the loss of nearly 3 million jobs" and "he supported tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas."

But recent Labor Department data underscore what even Democratic economists have said for some time -- outsourcing jobs overseas, or "offshoring," accounts for just a small fraction of the many millions of jobs that are lost each year even in a good economy.

There is indeed a tax break for US-based multinational corporations to locate operations overseas. Bush isn't to blame for it -- it's been there for decades. It's also true that Bush doesn't support Kerry's proposed remedy, which is controversial.

But even backers of the Kerry plan concede that eliminating the tax break won't end the offshoring of some US jobs. Multinational businesses build plants in other countries to take advantage of lower wages and to be near their global customers, too, not just for tax reasons.

...............

Read the whole article, jim....

[walker 0]

Hi shinRaiden

Check your facts Kerry did receive a Security Briefing about 3 weeks back.

As to Prostituting to the Media: Hello! It is an Election Year everyone is speaking to the Media.

With regard to wives being on the stump they have been doing that since Theodore Roosevelt's wife Eleanor Roosevelt or did you not learn basic history at school. Here is a link so you can learn: http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/ar32.html note the source. Of course maybe like Al Qaida you would prefer women were neither seen nor heard. In which case beware for one day soon the US will have woman as president.

As to Richard Clarke as the intelligence Cszar if you care to look into how intelligence was run under TBA you will be in for sickening shock. Have a Look round the Web and find out about the Office of Special Plans then you might understand how so much of the failures that lead to 9/11 rest at the door of TBA; who did mess around with intell assesments and broke the US intelligence system so badly that it even attacked the wrong enemy. You may remember Richard Clark left saying exactly that.

Your an intelligent man yet there you are using the NeoConMan policy of if you can not win the argument on the issues start insulting people

Quote[/b] ]What do you expect, when the guy looks like the chump who was the actor-standin for Jabba the Hutt in the directors cut of Star Wars ep. 4.?

Is not an argument that disproves what Michael Moore points out in the Film Farenheit 9/11 it is you waving the flag of defeat in debate.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Check your facts Kerry did receive a Security Briefing about 3 weeks back.

He sure did not read the Iraq report.....

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....inter=1

Quote[/b] ]

Kerry Didn't Read Iraq Report Before Vote -- Aides

Wed Jul 14, 7:42 PM ET

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), whose campaign demanded to know on Wednesday whether President Bush (news - web sites) read a key Iraq (news - web sites) intelligence assessment, did not read the document himself before voting to give Bush the authority to go to war, aides acknowledged.

"Along with other senators, he was briefed on the contents of the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) by (then-CIA (news - web sites) Director) George Tenet and other administration intelligence officials," said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer.

Kerry's campaign has challenged Bush to say whether he read the complete intelligence report before deciding to go to war, or whether he just read a one-page summary, which Democrats say gave him none of the dissenting views included in the full version.

The Kerry campaign stepped up the attack on Wednesday, sending out an e-mail with the headline, "Did anyone in the White House read the full National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq?"

In a conference call organized by the campaign, Senate Intelligence Committee Democrat Richard Durbin said Bush should have read the 90-page report issued in October 2002.

Asked if Kerry read it, Durbin responded, "I don't know."

Singer said the issue was not whether Kerry read the intelligence assessment himself, but why the White House had refused to release the one-page presidential summary.

"The bigger question is why ... the president -- the commander-in-chief, who decided when and how to take us to war -- won't share this document with the Congress," Singer said.

The National Intelligence Estimate concluded Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons but noted dissent from the State Department's intelligence service and other agencies.

The Bush campaign has accused Kerry of "flip-flopping" on the war.

The Massachusetts senator, who voted for the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq, has since charged the president rushed to war without adequate international help or a plan to win the peace.

At campaign stops in Minnesota and Wisconsin, Bush attacked Kerry for expressing pride in having voted against an $87 billion funding bill for Iraq.

Durbin criticized the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. He said it was prepared in just three weeks instead of the customary six months.

"It was done in a hurry so that the vote would take place in October before the invasion of Iraq. And now we know that there were many aspects of that National Intelligence Estimate which were inaccurate," Durbin said.

[walker 0]

Quote[/b] ]Check your facts Kerry did receive a Security Briefing about 3 weeks back.

He sure did not read the Iraq report.....

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....inter=1

Quote[/b] ]

Kerry Didn't Read Iraq Report Before Vote -- Aides

Wed Jul 14, 7:42 PM ET

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), whose campaign demanded to know on Wednesday whether President Bush (news - web sites) read a key Iraq (news - web sites) intelligence assessment, did not read the document himself before voting to give Bush the authority to go to war, aides acknowledged.

"Along with other senators, he was briefed on the contents of the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) by (then-CIA (news - web sites) Director) George Tenet and other administration intelligence officials," said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer.

Kerry's campaign has challenged Bush to say whether he read the complete intelligence report before deciding to go to war, or whether he just read a one-page summary, which Democrats say gave him none of the dissenting views included in the full version.

The Kerry campaign stepped up the attack on Wednesday, sending out an e-mail with the headline, "Did anyone in the White House read the full National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq?"

In a conference call organized by the campaign, Senate Intelligence Committee Democrat Richard Durbin said Bush should have read the 90-page report issued in October 2002.

Asked if Kerry read it, Durbin responded, "I don't know."

Singer said the issue was not whether Kerry read the intelligence assessment himself, but why the White House had refused to release the one-page presidential summary.

"The bigger question is why ... the president -- the commander-in-chief, who decided when and how to take us to war -- won't share this document with the Congress," Singer said.

The National Intelligence Estimate concluded Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons but noted dissent from the State Department's intelligence service and other agencies.

The Bush campaign has accused Kerry of "flip-flopping" on the war.

The Massachusetts senator, who voted for the congressional resolution authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq, has since charged the president rushed to war without adequate international help or a plan to win the peace.

At campaign stops in Minnesota and Wisconsin, Bush attacked Kerry for expressing pride in having voted against an $87 billion funding bill for Iraq.

Durbin criticized the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. He said it was prepared in just three weeks instead of the customary six months.

"It was done in a hurry so that the vote would take place in October before the invasion of Iraq. And now we know that there were many aspects of that National Intelligence Estimate which were inaccurate," Durbin said.

Err billybob2002

You might like to read what you post.

Severely embarasing for you I know but it just goes to show what happens when you dont read what is put in front of you because it is too complex or because you filter it through a dodgy system.

You attack the wrong enemies.

Or as here link to an article that mostly says the exact oposite to what you want.

Of course Kerry was only presented the intell that was any way sumarised and expanded on to him by George Tennet. It is there in your own post billybob2002 if you had been careful enough to read and understand it.

George Bush Jnr. was under Presedential obligation as Commander in Chief to read all 90 pages but it apears he didnt and may not have even read report or the one page summary he wants no one to see.

It always better to read and understand from many sources rather to take in the filtered synopsis of one.

Then analyse and synthesize your own opinion then write it up but you still insist on pasting up big woodges of stuff you dont even understand.

May I suggest sir that you read what you post and not just the headlines.

Kind Regards Walker

[Schoeler 0]

I hate to sound like an ass but my has life improve since 4 years ago. The economy has not effect my living and have more stuff that I want. Furthermore, the economy is improving and the majority of jobs are not going overseas but staying here. Sure Bush has made mistakes but at least he holds his ground. I agree with his partial-birth abortion ban (It should be limited but not banned (abortion), imho); a little with his affirmative action stance (I think it should be of system of economics or change it some because the current system is messed up); and etc. However, I do not agree with his free amnesty to illegals and not tighting up the border, not really taking care of the deficit and etc. Sure I want the US image improved overseas and I think he can (if he tries).

Four years ago, I wanted Gore to win but somehow Bush won me over after he got elected. I cannot explain it but something click that told me he was a ok person. I even made a bet that Gore will win...  

Yes, but you have to stop and think about the future yourself.  I meet a lot of Bush supporters who say the same thing, "Well, I am doing fine under Bush".

The thing is, are they really that selfish or are they not even bothering to look at their neighbor?

I think it may be a little of both.

And what about future generations?  What about your kids, who are going to be saddled with debt and maybe even drafted into military service?

Bush holding his ground has gotten us into some sticky situations, like a long-term war in Iraq.  Meanwhile, Iran developed WMD and actually supported Al-Qaeda in the 9-11 plot and Bush did nothing.  How long do you think we can continue to ignore that threat?  Now, we have a war we don't have enough troops to win, and another one on the horizon that we may be forced to fight.  All because Bush stood his ground.

The numbers showing the economy getting better are mixed.  The U.S. is borrowing heavily from Asia to fudge those numbers.  Jobs are growing, but they don't pay the same as the jobs that were lost.  In addition, healthcare benefits have actually decreased.  Education costs are going up and student loans and grants are going down.  I don't know if you have kids, but how do you plan on putting them through college if you do?

I have far less faith in Bush's ability to improve our image.  He had a fresh clean slate with the world after 9-11 and look where we are now.  He can't admit wrongdoing and the world resents him.  How will things be when he has an entire four years to maneuver without being concerned for his re-election?

It scares the hell out of me, because a President's second term is usually when their agenda really kicks into high gear.  If Bush was taking it lightly and trying not to step on any toes this first four years, then we as a nation are headed towards some serious trouble.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]You might like to read what you post.

Severely embarasing for you I know but it just goes to show what happens when you dont read what is put in front of you because it is too complex or because you filter it through a dodgy system.

You attack the wrong enemies.

Or as here link to an article that mostly says the exact oposite to what you want.

Of course Kerry was only presented the intell that was any way sumarised and expanded on to him by George Tennet. It is there in your own post billybob2002 if you had been careful enough to read and understand it.

George Bush Jnr. was under Presedential obligation as Commander in Chief to read all 90 pages but it apears he didnt and may not have even read report or the one page summary he wants no one to see.

It always better to read and understand from many sources rather to take in the filtered synopsis of one.

Then analyse and synthesize your own opinion then write it up but you still insist on pasting up big woodges of stuff you dont even understand.

May I suggest sir that you read what you post and not just the headlines.

Kind Regards Walker

I thought Kerry was very smart and knows his stuff.... Kerry's crew comes off as hypocrite(s) for wanting to know if Bush read it or not and he (Kerry) did not. Kerry is under obligation to read it too, if you think about it, because he cast a vote for yes or no. Kerry was briefed, and he did not sit down and read it (which his crew admits). Kerry is running for the president of the united states and his records is going to be looked at like Bush.

Edit: I hope Bush read at least the one page thingy...

[walker 0]

Hi billybob2002

As You say John F. Kerry is very smart but like many people he put his trust in the office of the president and that any one in that position would be trustworthy enough to do the job but history has shown us that was not the case.

And now like the rest of America he is filled with righteous anger that the people who are suposed to be leading the country can't do the job and instead have lead America on a wild goose chase war with Iraq that has cost tens of thousands of lives ruined the lives all those thousands left disabled by it and destroyed a country.

This is why it is important to quit doing the character assasinations so reminscent of what happened to Sen John McCain and is now beig dealt out to the Reagan Family and istead argue on the issues and to unite America under John F. Kerry as President of a once more United States of America.

People have to be aware of the issues and I think it appropriate to see what John F. Kerry a Decorated War Hero has to say about National Defense:

Quote[/b] ]America was born in pursuit of an idea - that a free people with diverse beliefs can govern themselves in peace.

Throughout our history, we have forged powerful alliances to defend, encourage, and promote that idea around the world. Through two World Wars, the Cold War, the Gulf War and Kosovo, America led instead of going it alone. We respected the world - and the world respected us.

Today, our leadership has walked away from more than a century of American leadership in the world to embrace a new - and dangerously ineffective - American disregard for the world. They bully instead of persuade. They act alone when they could assemble a team. They confuse leadership with going it alone. They fail to understand that real leadership means standing by your principles and rallying others to join you.

John Kerry and John Edwards believe in a better, stronger America - an America that is respected, not just feared. An America that listens and leads - that cherishes freedom, safeguards our people, uplifts others, forges alliances, and deserves respect. This is the America they believe in. This is the America they are fighting for. And this is the America we can be.

Today, we face three great challenges above all others - First, to win the global war against terror; Second, to stop the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; Third, to promote democracy, freedom, and opportunity around the world, starting by winning the peace in Iraq. To meet these challenges, John Kerry's national security policy will be guided by four imperatives:

Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances

The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at us. As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies.

Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats

John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions.

Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal

The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. As president, John Kerry will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil

To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

Of course I am sure someone who has commanded troops in war is better than one who has not as commander in chief. That is what gives you a real understanding of what it actualy means to send people to war. That is the kind of man who has made sure there is proper intell, who is going to make sure the plan includes an exit strategy.

That is what makes John F. Kerry the best man to run the nations defense. That is what makes John F. Kerry the best man for the Job of Commander in Chief that and a stunning record of voluntary service in the nations protection.

Kind Regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes, but you have to stop and think about the future yourself.  I meet a lot of Bush supporters who say the same thing, "Well, I am doing fine under Bush".

The thing is, are they really that selfish or are they not even bothering to look at their neighbor?

I think it may be a little of both.

And what about future generations?  What about your kids, who are going to be saddled with debt and maybe even drafted into military service?

Bush holding his ground has gotten us into some sticky situations, like a long-term war in Iraq.  Meanwhile, Iran developed WMD and actually supported Al-Qaeda in the 9-11 plot and Bush did nothing.  How long do you think we can continue to ignore that threat?  Now, we have a war we don't have enough troops to win, and another one on the horizon that we may be forced to fight.  All because Bush stood his ground.

The numbers showing the economy getting better are mixed.  The U.S. is borrowing heavily from Asia to fudge those numbers.  Jobs are growing, but they don't pay the same as the jobs that were lost.  In addition, healthcare benefits have actually decreased.  Education costs are going up and student loans and grants are going down.  I don't know if you have kids, but how do you plan on putting them through college if you do?

I have far less faith in Bush's ability to improve our image. He had a fresh clean slate with the world after 9-11 and look where we are now.  He can't admit wrongdoing and the world resents him.  How will things be when he has an entire four years to maneuver without being concerned for his re-election?

It scares the hell out of me, because a President's second term is usually when their agenda really kicks into high gear.  If Bush was taking it lightly and trying not to step on any toes this first four years, then we as a nation are headed towards some serious trouble.

They are still investigating the Al-Qaeda-Iran/911 and not made any major conclusion.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=208

Quote[/b] ]

Economy Producing Mostly Bad Jobs? Not so fast.

A new set of figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show HIGHER-paying jobs growing faster. A FactCheck.org exclusive. (But there's evidence on both sides).

Summary

Now that the economy is growing and creating new jobs, John Kerry has been saying that the quality of those jobs is "much lower" than the quality of jobs that have been lost. A recent ad by some Kerry allies even shows a middle-aged man reporting for his new job wearing a paper hat at a seedy-looking burger joint.

Well, hold on -- there's strong new evidence to the contrary.

A new set of numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics actually shows solid growth in employment in relatively higher -paying occupations including construction workers, health-care professionals, business managers, and teachers, and virtually no growth at all in relatively lower-paying occupations including office clerks and assembly-line workers. It's the most detailed breakdown yet -- looking at 154 different job and industry groupings. These statistics are a FactCheck.org exclusive -- supplied to us by BLS at our request and not previously published.

Another statistic often overlooked by Bush critics is that average earnings of rank-and-file private-sector workers have increased since Bush took office, though modestly. Even after adjusting for inflation -- including the rising price of gasoline --those earnings are up just over 1% since January 2001, despite the recession and the initially slow recovery.

These statistics come from a different BLS survey and cover a somewhat different time period than the figures cited by Kerry. They are going to be controversial and won't settle the good jobs/bad jobs argument. There's also plenty of evidence that large numbers of Americans are indeed worse off now than they were before 2001, including the fact that more than 1 million Americans have been out of work for a full year or more.

We can't disprove Kerry's claim that bad jobs are replacing good jobs over the past few months. But we do see good evidence that job quality has increased over the past year or more.

Anyway, I'm in college (community) right now and transferring in the fall to the University of Maryland. I was offered only one loan but my EFC was lowered, so I hope for some more things.

[Akira 0]

First time I heard Al Sharpton speak...

Man that was amazing! Ripped the hell out of Bush.

"...it don't matter cause we all needed fresh air..." lol....

"...we decided to ride this mule as far as it would take us..."

He was suppose to speak for 6 minutes and he spoke for about 20, and completely unscripted.

I'm completely impressed...

[Bernadotte 0]

There is a question that I'd like to ask any potential supporter of George W. Bush.

Near the beginning of Michael Moore's documentary, Farenheit 911, we are shown the president sitting at the front of a primary school class in Florida when his chief of staff whispers in his ear:  "Mr. President, the nation is under attack."

Bush says nothing.  He simply picks up the children's book being read from and stares into space.  He continues to do exactly that for the next 9 minutes.  Watch the film and see for yourself.

Question:  Is that how you think America's leader should respond when told that the nation is under attack?

[walker 0]

There is a question that I'd like to ask any potential supporter of George W. Bush.

Near the beginning of Michael Moore's documentary, Farenheit 911, we are shown the president sitting at the front of a primary school class in Florida when his chief of staff whispers in his ear:  "Mr. President, the nation is under attack."

Bush says nothing.  He simply picks up the children's book being read from and stares into space.  He continues to do exactly that for the next 9 minutes.  Watch the film and see for yourself.

Question:  Is that how you think America's leader should respond when told that the nation is under attack?

Hi Bernadotte

In fact the film shortens it he actualy sat there 20 minutes then an aid came up to him to say shouldn't we do something you could be in danger. He then got up and they spent the next two days flying him round in hiding.

In total it took George Bush Jnr 34 minutes to finaly order aircraft into the air in his nations defence.

It is why he is such a week link in the nations defence. There is a video on the net of the whole 20 minutes. If you look carefully the book about goats is upside down.

The look on George Bush Jnr.'s face is one of frozen terror. I saw it occasionaly in people who were learning to climb. The realy bad cases like George Bush Jnr. I just give them there money back, they will never get over it.

With regard to the ordering of the aircraft into the air I think in all probability somone did it for him. People in that kind of catatonic fear are totaly incapable of doing anything without somone telling them what to do.

I will hunt out the video for you.

Kind Regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

I will hunt out the video for you.

I (and many friends) would appreciate that.  Thank you.  

I've always regarded the actual leader of TBA to be Dick Cheney.  I even heard that during Bush's untelevised testimony before the 911 panel he and Cheney each had on earpieces to facilitate prompting.  ...Outrageous.

But of course, even the Republicans knew better than to run a fat, hunched, balding geezer with glasses and heart disease in the 2000 race for the Whitehouse.  Perhaps Senator Ted Kennedy said it best in his speech the other night: "Come November, let us all do our utmost to retire VP Dick Cheney to an undisclosed location."

[denoir 0]

I hate to sound like an ass but my has life improve since 4 years ago. The economy has not effect my living and have more stuff that I want. Furthermore, the economy is improving and the majority of jobs are not going overseas but staying here.

That logic has some very serious flaws in it. It's a natural way that your individual economic situation should improve over time. The question you should be asking yourself is how much better would you do if somebody else was in charge who made the economy work in your favour. So that you could say that your quality of life has improved even more, this time because of the economy, not despite of it.

The second thing is that your individual economy may very well be decoupled from the economy. Especially if you are a student. The economic decisions now will however affect you later. That deficit has to be paid for at one point and it will probably come when you actually have a job and an income that you want to keep. The messed up economy has long term effects, much more than short term ones.

And I'll like to give you another point of view. During the last four years my financial situation hasn't changed much relative others in Europe. Relative Americans, I'm doing two times better. With the value of the dollar, your absolute income relative to the world has dropped significantly. And thanks to a global economy, it is relevant. America does have a strong domestic industry, but the trends are in the other direction. And when you have to import stuff, it really becomes relevant.

Quote[/b] ]

Sure Bush has made mistakes but at least he holds his ground.

Running full speed into a wall and not recognizing that it was a bad choice is not an endearing quality in a leader. Fanaticism is hardly something commendable.

Quote[/b] ]Sure I want the US image improved overseas and I think he can (if he tries).

Hardly. I mean you've seen the international opinion on Bush. Even in the most friendly countries, like Britain, there is a massive negative opinion about Bush. Even if he payed the US debts to the UN, joined the ICC, signed Kyoto, closed down Gitmo and publicly apologized for the Iraq war, I very much doubt it would change anything.

In Europe for instance, Bush made some serious damage with the prelude to the Iraq war. Right now he couldn't be better. And face it, when we're talking about 'international approval', we're talking about Europe and to some extent Russia. Europe is busy with the EU project and needs the people to unite over something. Bush is the excellent bad guy. He's so incredibly far away from modern European ideals that it's very simple to make a consensus that we don't like him. He comes off as a religious fundamentalist, chickenhawk, illiterate hillbilly. Couldn't be better as far as Europe is concerned. Plus he's doing an excellent job for us with your economy. We are in many respects competitors after all.

Quote[/b] ]

Four years ago, I wanted Gore to win but somehow Bush won me over after he got elected. I cannot explain it but something click that told me he was a ok person. I even made a bet that Gore will win...  

Yeah, during the 2000 campaign, I found him to be quite likable as a person. Plus his 'compassionate conservativism' seemed like a step in the right direction for the Republicans. Of course the mistake there was listening to the dummy rather than to the ventriloquist. Cheney, Wolfowitz and the whole neoconservative faction are doing the real talking. There are some very bright people there, with awful agendas. You're not voting for Bush, you're voting for them.

[red oct 2]

There is a question that I'd like to ask any potential supporter of George W. Bush.

Near the beginning of Michael Moore's documentary, Farenheit 911, we are shown the president sitting at the front of a primary school class in Florida when his chief of staff whispers in his ear: "Mr. President, the nation is under attack."

Bush says nothing. He simply picks up the children's book being read from and stares into space. He continues to do exactly that for the next 9 minutes. Watch the film and see for yourself.

Question: Is that how you think America's leader should respond when told that the nation is under attack?

well let me say first im not a supporter of bush, but i don't think thats a very relevant question. for those who ask that question i ask...

What did you want him to do? The attacks have already have happened. its not as if he personaly could just get up run to NYC and rescue all 3000 people who died which btw the entire NYC fire department did everything they could to help which only ended in many of them loosing their own lifes. if Al Gore were in office what would have he done? he was vice president in another administration that had also failed to destroy alqaida after all. the clinton administration had more time to stop the attacks when they were in the infint stages of planning tba did.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]And I'll like to give you another point of view. During the last four years my financial situation hasn't changed much relative others in Europe. Relative Americans, I'm doing two times better. With the value of the dollar, your absolute income relative to the world has dropped significantly. And thanks to a global economy, it is relevant. America does have a strong domestic industry, but the trends are in the other direction. And when you have to import stuff, it really becomes relevant.

I'm freeloader, you see...personal income=$0....I live off my parents in which one is GS-13 (look the pay scale up between 7-9 on GS-13) and the other is a school teacher with more than twenty-something years of work whose paid is not crappy.

Quote[/b] ]

I've always regarded the actual leader of TBA to be Dick Cheney. I even heard that during Bush's untelevised testimony before the 911 panel he and Cheney each had on earpieces to facilitate prompting. ...Outrageous.

source?

[walker 0]

get up run to NYC and rescue all 3000 people who died

Hi Red Oct

But if he had acted promptly and ordered interceptors over Washington he could have prevented the attack on the Pentagon and saved all those lives.

Quote[/b] ]

57) 9:01 a.m.: Bush later makes the following statement. "And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I used to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident.' But I was whisked off from there -- I didn't have much time to think about it." Bush could not have possibly seen the first plane (American Airlines Flight 11) hit the WTC, because the only video showing this was not shown on television till later in the day. So how could he have possibly seen and said this?

9:05 a.m.: Andrew Card walks up to Bush while he is listening to a Goat Story with 16 second graders in Sandra Kay Daniels’s class at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. Card whispers in his ear "A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack." Bush (commander-and-chief?) keeps listening to this Goat Story

9:23 a.m.: Bush talks privately with Cheney, his National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller and Governor George Pataki of New York. Why does Bush wait from 9:05 (when Andrew Card tells him of United Airlines Flight 175 hitting the WTC) till 9:23 to finally call? He still does not give the authority to the fighters to shoot down any hostile airliners. What is he waiting for?

83) 9:30 a m.: Bush, speaking to the nation from Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, says the country has suffered an "apparent terrorist attack" and "a national tragedy." He would chase down, "those folks who committed this act." Bush also said, "Terrorism against our nation will not stand." It was an echo of "This will not stand," the words his father, George H. W. Bush, had used a few days after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990-in Bush's opinion, one of his father's finest moments.

http://www.911timeline.net/

Quote[/b] ]Now the only airliner left in the sky with its IFF transponder signal off which has just made a 180 degree turn over southern Ohio / northeastern Kentucky and has been heading directly back to Washington D.C. and The Pentagon since 8:59 a.m. -- is American Airlines Flight 77. Why didn’t these two F-15’s that were 71 miles from NYC and the WTC, immediately redirect to intercept the only dangerous airliner in the sky, American Airlines Flight 77?

These two F-15’s had 34 minutes to reach Washington D.C. before American Airlines Flight 77 hits the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. The mission of these two F-15’s from the 102nd Fighter Wing of the Otis Air National Guard Base is to protect the skies from Washington D.C. to the north. The F-15 has a top speed of 1875+ MPH, so they could have closed the 300 or so miles from their current position to Washington D.C. in just about 10 minutes. At top speed they could have been at the Pentagon 24 minutes before American Airlines Flight 77 hits it.

Quote[/b] ]9:37 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 is lost from radar screens and impacts the western side of the Pentagon.

It is plane fact and you can see it on his face George Bush Jnr. froze in abject terror the book about goats is upside down unable to think or act till somone prompted him then all he could do was be told what to do .

Kind Regards Walker

[ralphwiggum 6]

I'm freeloader, you see...personal income=$0....I live off my parents in which one is GS-13 (look the pay scale up between 7-9 on GS-13) and the other is a school teacher with more than twenty-something years of work whose paid is not crappy.

CLOSET DEMOCRAT!!!!!!

   

Kinda funny how Mrs. Edwards is. She gave up her job to raise family. Wonder how GOP will attack that.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Bush says nothing.  He simply picks up the children's book being read from and stares into space.  He continues to do exactly that for the next 9 minutes.  Watch the film and see for yourself.

Question:  Is that how you think America's leader should respond when told that the nation is under attack?

I suppose he could have gotten in a helicopter, had it flown to New York, and then made a big frowny face at the wreckage. Or he could have hopped on his plane even more quickly.

Quote[/b] ]The look on George Bush Jnr.'s face is one of frozen terror. I saw it occasionaly in people who were learning to climb. The realy bad cases like George Bush Jnr. I just give them there money back, they will never get over it.

Well, something like that had never been done before. Shock is understandable. Gore would probably have done the same thing.

Quote[/b] ]People have to be aware of the issues and I think it appropriate to see what John F. Kerry a Decorated War Hero has to say about National Defense:

What does winning medals in small-scale river engagements tell us about his ability to command the entire military of the USA ?

Quote[/b] ]But if he had acted promptly and ordered interceptors over Washington he could have prevented the attack on the Pentagon and saved all those lives.

And then Bush would have been accused of taking an extreme action by blowing up an airliner. Also, for all they knew, there could have been more attacks in New York, so they would want to keep some aircover around.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]What does winning medals in small-scale river engagements tell us about his ability to command the entire military of the USA ?

And what does doing lines of coke and not showing up to your NG duties tell us about someone's ability to command the entire military of the USA?

Quote[/b] ]And then Bush would have been accused of taking an extreme action by blowing up an airliner. Also, for all they knew, there could have been more attacks in New York, so they would want to keep some aircover around.

Guess we'll never know. By the time the fighters were ordered out, and in the air space, no information was given from the TBA, so the ATC knew nothing of the threat, nor where it might be coming from. There was no way they could have been vectored to intercept.

Quote[/b] ]Well, something like that had never been done before. Shock is understandable. Gore would probably have done the same thing.

Shock is one thing. Sitting with a blank stare while the nation you were elected/hired to protect is under attack and do NOTHING is something differnet.

Quote[/b] ]I suppose he could have gotten in a helicopter, had it flown to New York, and then made a big frowny face at the wreckage. Or he could have hopped on his plane even more quickly.

He could have begged off the reading, explaining an emergency, gotten information and actually DONE SOMETHING. It's a sad statement when I'm watching at work and I knew exactly what was happening (after seeing the first hit), while Bush is informed and sat around with a dumbass look.

Whether it would have been effective, or not, whether it would have mattered or not, the first step to being a leader is at least DOING SOMETHING.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]And what does doing lines of coke and not showing up to your NG duties tell us about someone's ability to command the entire military of the USA?

At least he got a honorable discharge. I find it kinda funny that more than 21 medal of honor winners support Bush...

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040727-051946-7822r.htm

Quote[/b] ]

U.S. Medal of Honor winners slam Kerry

Washington, DC, Jul. 27 (UPI) -- A letter signed by 24 Congressional Medal of Honor winners criticizing U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was released Tuesday.

"We are disturbed," they said, "that John Kerry would try to scare veterans with his false accusations, and we are disappointed in his lack of support for today's troops."

While a war hero himself, Kerry's record, the 24 winners of the nation's highest award for military valor said, shows he is "out of the mainstream."

"President Bush." they wrote, "has led the way on improving veterans' benefits, supporting our troops and restoring honor and dignity to the White House."

"Since 2001, "President Bush has increased veterans funding by over $20 billion, and funding for veterans' health care has increased by 40 percent since he took office. Funding for veterans has gone up twice as fast under President Bush as it did under President Clinton, and those who accuse the President of cutting funding are simply not being honest with veterans."

The ex-service members hit Kerry for what they said was his vote, "against a $1.3 billion increase in veterans' health care," as well as his missed votes on veterans' matters and for having, "voted against funding for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq."

He must be doing something...

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]"We are disturbed," they said, "that John Kerry would try to scare veterans with his false accusations, and we are disappointed in his lack of support for today's troops."

Where the hell are they getting that? Considering Edwards in his speech not only mentioned and promised help to the wounded in Iraq that Bush wants swept under the rug, but also promised to increase Special Forces (mentioned specifically) and funding for the equipment and technology needed for this war.

Quote[/b] ]"President Bush." they wrote, "has led the way on improving veterans' benefits, supporting our troops and restoring honor and dignity to the White House."

Biggest load of bullshit ever. Veterans benefits? You mean the ones he slashed? Supporting our troops? By sending them into a war under false pretenses? By stretching them so thin that they are at a breaking point? Honor and dignity to the White House? By having the whole world hate us and make divisive statements based on religion? Not telling the truth to veterans? Its sad to see so many blinded by party bullshit.

Perhaps you should do some digging on these MoH winners before taking their word as Gospel. Like the Nixon lapdog who "debated" Kerry in the 70s.

[billybob2002 0]

Kerry better delivery....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16026-2004Jul26.html

Quote[/b] ]

Voters Want More Specifics From Kerry

Poll Shows Democrat Losing Ground to Bush

By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane

Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, July 27, 2004; Page A01

A majority of voters say they know little about John F. Kerry's positions on key issues and want the Democratic presidential candidate to detail specific plans for handling the economy, Iraq and the war on terrorism when he addresses the Democratic National Convention and a nationally televised audience on Thursday, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Quote[/b] ]

In barely a month, Kerry has lost ground to President Bush on every top voting issue in this year's election.

A growing proportion of voters say Bush and not Kerry is the candidate who most closely shares their values, and four in 10 believe the Democrat is "too liberal." Bush has even narrowed the gap on which candidate better understands their problems, an area in which Kerry has led.

Quote[/b] ]

The survey found that Kerry and Bush remain virtually deadlocked, with 48 percent of registered voters supporting Bush and 46 percent Kerry. Independent candidate Ralph Nader claims 3 percent of the hypothetical vote. Kerry held a four-point lead over Bush in mid-June and was tied with Bush in a Post survey two weeks ago

Quote[/b] ]

Currently half of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president and 47 percent disapprove. Fewer than half endorse the way he is managing the economy, the situation in Iraq and health care. More broadly, a majority of Americans -- 53 percent -- say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country, a 21-point increase since Saddam Hussein's government fell to U.S. forces 15 months ago.

Quote[/b] ]

The latest Post-ABC survey suggests that voters are impatient to hear from Kerry on key issues in this campaign, presenting Democrats with an opportunity to show their nominee in a favorable light. More than half -- 54 percent -- say they are unfamiliar with Kerry's positions; only one in four is similarly uncertain where Bush stands. Nearly half of all Democrats -- 46 percent -- and a majority of political independents say they are not sure what Kerry stands for.

Quote[/b] ]

On issues, Kerry has also lost ground to Bush. By increasing margins, the president is seen as better able to deal with Iraq, the war on terrorism and taxes. On two key issues in which Kerry had an advantage as late as two weeks ago -- the economy and education -- the candidates are tied.

Read further in to the poll to find out 88% strongly support Bush and 72% for Kerry. Majority of the would-be voter for Kerry are only voting for him because they do not likeBush. The biggest shock is that more people believe that Bush is more honest than Kerry (46% to 40%); a stronger leader; make the country safer; and etc. 43% of people are the same off finanically when Bush took office and 15% are better. However, 43% are worst off.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Biggest load of bullshit ever. Veterans benefits? You mean the ones he slashed?

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=144

Quote[/b] ]

Funding for Veterans up 27%, But Democrats Call It A Cut

Money for Veterans goes up faster under Bush than under Clinton, yet Kerry accuses Bush of an unpatriotic breach of faith.

February 18, 2004

Modified: February 18, 2004

eMail to a friend  Printer Friendly Version

Summary

In the Feb. 15 Democratic debate, Kerry suggested that Bush was being unpatriotic: “He’s cut the VA (Veterans Administration) budget and not kept faith with veterans across this country. And one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country.â€

It is true that Bush is not seeking as big an increase for next year as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs wanted. It is also true that the administration has tried to slow the growth of spending for veterans by not giving new benefits to some middle-income vets.

Yet even so, funding for veterans is going up twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. And the number of veterans getting health benefits is going up 25% under Bush's budgets. That's hardly a cut.

Quote[/b] ]

Some Denied Benefits; A Cut Proposed

In January, 2003 the Veterans Administration announced that -- because the increase in funds couldn't meet the rising demand -- it would start turning away many middle-income applicants applying for new medical benefits.

That led to accusations that Bush was denying benefits to veterans. " We have 400,000 veterans in this country who have been denied access in a whole category to the VA," Kerry declared during a debate Oct. 9, 2003. The VA's estimates of the number who might be denied benefits is much lower, and in fact nobody can say with certainty how many middle-income veterans might have signed up for medical benefits if they had been allowed.

Meanwhile the VA  continues to add hundreds of thousands of disabled and lower-income veterans to those already receiving benefits, and has kept paying benefits to all veterans who were already receiving them.

The middle-income veterans who currently aren't being allowed to sign up are those generally with incomes above 80% of the mid-point for their locality. The  means test cut-off for benefits ranges up to $40,000 a year in many cities. And any veteran with income less than  $25,162 still qualifies no matter where they live. Those figures are for single veterans. The income cut-off is higher for those with a spouse or children.

Veterans groups have called for "mandatory funding" of medical benefits, which would automatically appropriate whatever funds are required to meet demand. Kerry has endorsed mandatory funding, which would allow middle-income veterans with no service-connected disability to resume signing up.

The administration also has proposed to make the VA's prescription drug benefit less generous. Currently many veterans pay $7 for each one-month supply of medication. The administration proposes to increase that to $15, and require a $250 annual fee as well. Congress rejected a similar proposal last year. The proposal wouldn't affect those -- such as veterans with a disability rated at 50% or more -- who currently aren't required to make any co-payments.

And it should be noted that the administration is proposing to increase some benefits, including ending pharmacy co-payments for some very low-income veterans, and paying for emergency-room care for veterans in non-VA hospitals.

All this means Bush can fairly be accused of trying to hold down the rapid growth in spending for veterans benefits -- particularly those sought by middle-income vets with no service-connected disability. But saying he cut the budget is contrary to fact.

(Note: FactCheck.org twice contacted the Kerry campaign asking how he justified his claim that the VA budget is being cut, but we've received no response.)

[walker 0]

Hi billybob2002

It is like this there are people who act in an emergency, your 24 Congressional Medal of Honor winners and John Kerry who won the Bronze and Silver Star are those people.

Then there are people the freeze. It ain't there fault it is just the way they are. George Bush Jnr. is one of those a freezes.

It is there for all to see he is a commander who is incapable of command. No if buts or maybes, when the chips were down he froze.

Those of you who saw Band of Brothers will remember in the battle of Foy, this is a real historical event, there was a Lieutenant in charge of Easy Company who does exactly the same as George Bush Jnr. does on 9/11 he freezes unable to give orders. Those under his command are asking him what should we do all the time lives are being lost. Luckily there is commander Major Winters above that Lieutenant who orders a replacement Lieutenant in to the battle and the situation is saved.

In the case of the Commander in Chief there is no one above him to replace him.

Consider it is your own life and lives of your family; your sons and daughters you are placing in the hands of a president who when the Chips are Down cant act. He Freezes. It is there recorded for all to see on video; his mind so terrified he does not even have the book the right way up.

In a war on terror the USA needs a President who will act. Not one who freezes in abject terror.

In this time of fear the USA needs a Commander in Chief with a proven record under fire.

The USA needs a President to bring hope back to the country the USA needs John F. Kerry.

That hope will come it will come in November when America Elects John F. Kerry as President.

Kind Regards Walker