Lets vote, for president

[60Yen]

I don't know Ralph Nader, so I leave him out of the guess.

They both suck. While Bush looks more like a president to me, he still is a monkey. Kerry on the other hand is mr. Flip-Flap and he's boring as hell. He isn't someone of who you say: 'That's the President!' . I've got that more with Bush. So it's a bit of Leader vs Thinker. On this point I would vote for Bush....

On the political side of the story, I would vote Kerry. I don't know exactly what his points are, but I know that republicans are more in favour of guns and pretty much annoying conservative. Besides that crap, Bush is always carrying a bag full of those right-winged Christians...

---Final conclusion: Kerry

 

[Brooker]

Don't believe Bush's "flip flop" propaganda. What Bush was referring to was a bill that Kerry supported, then the Republicans changed that bill to include things that Kerry didn't approve of, so he didn't vote for it because it had become an entirely different bill. Republicans love to say things over and over again until people start to believe it's true.

Now they're trying to say that Kerry betrayed the U.S. because he protested against the Vietnam War. But that just proves to me that he stands up for what he believes in and wants to do what's best for America, `cause I don't think anyone would argue that Vietnam was best for America or the world.

 

[Lina Inverse]

You should really go and try out the "Bush Game", which clearly points out how thorougly Bush wrecked America in the past four years, it's downright frightening!
Download for PC
Download for Mac
Play online (Flash player required)

E.g. Bush's tax cuts - all they did was making America's richest men even richer! Take for example the Estate tax cut. While it saves Farmers etc. some small amounts, it gives hundreds of millions dollars into the pockets of the ultra-rich (Hilton, Enron etc.) :shock:
Same as with the Dividend tax cut. It saves the average small shareholders just very small amounts, the only ones who really profit from it are the huge shareholders who now get a considerable amount more money since they can keep their big dividends all by themselves kashii:

 

[meme9898]

Bush is the man for the job, theres no question about it. He has done nothing wrong ppl dont like him because he is a man who has great morals, and doesnt turn away from those morals. He acted rightly going into Iraq, He had Putin, Blair, and about 5 other credible contries saying saddam was a threat, saddam gassed his own ppl among other things, he funded terrorism, harberd them, and know the ppl or Iraq are free and no longer under the horrible regime of saddam. Bush has also helped the economy out of the recection clinton lead us into, the last quater earnings of the economy are the highest we have ahd in American history, so it baffels me how the left can accuse the president of this among other things.

Kerry is a flip flopper who cant make up his mind about any issue"I voted for the war before i voted against" what the hell does that mean? He says that we should go into iraq then he says we souldnt have, then he says it was a good idea to go into iraq. Make up yuor damn mind!

As for you ppl posting notes about american politics,you have no right to say anything about it, 90% of the news in the world is liberal and your only getting side of the story, and they like to cut paste shots of the president talking to make him look stupid, or a warmongerer, yeah bush is bad at some his word pronuctuation, that doesnt make him stupid. Most of the magizines are libril as well, you cant belive this junk, web sites that bash bush are one sided and provide you with no real information, use your head look at both sides of the issues try to understand where there coming from, because it seems you all are just bashing bush for crap you saw on the "news".

So incunclusion Bush is the one i want leading america.

 

[Brooker]

meme9898 wrote....

So incunclusion Bush is the one i want leading america.

Fair enough, I can respect your position. It'll be nice to hear from "the other side" rather than all of us just agreeing with eachother all the time. However, I'd like to point out some inaccuracies in your facts....

Bush has also helped the economy out of the recection clinton lead us into, the last quater earnings of the economy are the highest we have ahd in American history, so it baffels me how the left can accuse the president of this among other things.

Actually, the recession and national debt was in its best shape during the Clinton Administration - no easy task because it was in the toilet after 16 years of Bush, Sr. and Reagan. Most of the progress Clinton made has been erased by Bush, Jr.

Kerry is a flip flopper who cant make up his mind about any issue

Why is he a flip-flopper? Because Bush said so? The main thing that Bush points at Kerry at for being a flip-flopper is a particular bill that Kerry supported, but by the time it got to vote, the Republicans had changed the bill so much that he no longer approved of it and didn't vote for it.

This flip-flop nonsense is a very strategic move by the Republicans. They realized that the main thing Bush supporters like about him and maybe the only thing he has going for him is that he doesn't change his mind. Therefore, their best strategic move it to make it look like Kerry doesn't possess that "virtue," even if they have to twist the facts.

90% of the news in the world is liberal and your only getting side of the story,

Actually, most of the media in this country is owned and operated by conservatives.

 

[meme9898]

Well, i dont believe i have inaccuracies in my facts about the economy, the 90% may be a little bit over stated, but not to much.

"They realized that the main thing Bush supporters like about him and maybe the only thing he has going for him is that he doesn't change his mind"

This a wrong I don't mainly support Bush because of the fact he doesnt change his mind, and neither do most bush supporters. What i see is my family and other ppl around the country i know, who own a bussiness, when the democrates are in they dont make a lot of money, but when the republicans come in they make a lot more money. I hear ppl say "well there rich they dont need the money", or something along the lines of take more of there money(higher taxes) and give it to the poor, this robin hood style of economics wont work.

1.Look if you own a small bussinnes and your making just enough money to support your family and pay your bills, but you dont get any time to spend with them because your working so hard, well when the republicans get in office you start to make more money and you get a nice tax cut, and if your good with your own federal tax returns you should end up not paying the government very much money in federal taxes. Now that your making and keeping more of your own money you now can hire ppl and employ them to help you spend more time with your family, thus lowering the unemployment rate. This concept works also for big bussinnes as well.

2. The robin hood style of economics: Raise taxes on the wealthy and those who make above a six-digit salery, then help out the poor. Well i must say yes there is ppl in this country who need help, but there is much more ppl who are just lazy they dont want to get a job, they sit around there house collecting wellfare not trying to go look for a job, if you dont have a job and you dont have a good excuse for it you shouldnt get well fare, because its being abused in this country, what i would do and this is the Bush plan simplified,
Wellfare for the working, so if you have a job and your not making enough to support your family then yes you should be on wellfare, but for the others and believe me i know plenty of ppl who do this you should not get wellfare. Look at the indian reservations we pay for almost everything that they need well look what the handouts have done to the majority of their ppl, if you dont know look it up.

3. I feel safe with Bush in office, he is going after the terrorists before they came for us, abd this may not be that good for the iraq citizens, but the terrorists are going for iraq and not the American soil, this i believe was not his purpose, but it is a good thing for the majority of our citizens. I dont think the dems know how to handle this war on terror the right way, and they say we need a lot of international support, if im not mistakin France and Germany are the only ones in Europe who didnt want to go in, and i think later russia, but it seems to me we did have a majority of ppl on our side, but know after the fact there ppl have all changed there mind and are know all blaming bush,. I feel the the President should decide when to defend America not the United Nations.

4. As for morals I have the same as Bush, and agree with his policies because i believe there in the best interest for the country.

 

[Brooker]

To me, the Democratic philosophy is much more responsible. They try to take care of eveyone in the country, not just themselves. No one wants to pay taxes, but everyone wants what tax money buys. I'm not just talking about welfare. There's education, urban development, health care, social programs, military, etc. These are things that eveyone should be paying for. I heard recently that 20% of the American population controls 50% of the wealth.

Republicans only care about keeping what's theirs and screw everyone else. And "trickle down economics" just doesn't work, it keeps the wealth in the control of the wealthy. They also don't seem to care about the fact that this war is not in the best interests of the world. Terrorism is stronger now and there's a much greater divide between former allies. No, most of the world does not support America's war, and the countries who do are doing it out of fear of what would happen if they didn't. If America is so great, it should have the power to not only do what's best for itself, but to do what's best for everyone and unite the world, rather than dividing it selfishly.

The main reason that I usually see eye to eye with the democratic party is that I care about the world and have compassion for my fellow man. The opposition is very morally irresponsible in my view, and yet they claim so many religious convictions.

:sorry:

 

[senseiman]

1.Look if you own a small bussinnes and your making just enough money to support your family and pay your bills, but you dont get any time to spend with them because your working so hard, well when the republicans get in office you start to make more money and you get a nice tax cut, and if your good with your own federal tax returns you should end up not paying the government very much money in federal taxes. Now that your making and keeping more of your own money you now can hire ppl and employ them to help you spend more time with your family, thus lowering the unemployment rate. This concept works also for big bussinnes as well.

Not so sure about this. If I'm not mistaken the vast majority of the last Bush tax cut went to wealthy individuals and big business, not the middle class (ie most consumers) or small business owners. Plus thanks to this tax cut and the war on Iraq the deficit, which was reduced to zero under the democrat Clinton, has reached record levels of nearly half a trillion dollars a year under Bush. Seeing as how they've already cut back on every federal program to the point that education, medicare and the social security system are woefully underfunded, the only way to pay that back is through a tax increase in the future. All these tax cuts have done is mortgage the countries future, and later presidents regardless of their party affiliation are going to have no choice but to raise taxes to cover the burden.

2. The robin hood style of economics: Raise taxes on the wealthy and those who make above a six-digit salery, then help out the poor. Well i must say yes there is ppl in this country who need help, but there is much more ppl who are just lazy they dont want to get a job, they sit around there house collecting wellfare not trying to go look for a job, if you dont have a job and you dont have a good excuse for it you shouldnt get well fare, because its being abused in this country, what i would do and this is the Bush plan simplified,
Wellfare for the working, so if you have a job and your not making enough to support your family then yes you should be on wellfare, but for the others and believe me i know plenty of ppl who do this you should not get wellfare. Look at the indian reservations we pay for almost everything that they need well look what the handouts have done to the majority of their ppl, if you dont know look it up.

Do you know how much the amount that all welfare recipients recieves costs the government? Its almost nothing, a fraction of 1% of the federal budget. Its such a minor thing, and the Democrat Clinton was the one who introduced welfare reform anyway, so I don't see why a Bush backer would so prominently site this as a reason for being Republican.

3. I feel safe with Bush in office, he is going after the terrorists before they came for us, abd this may not be that good for the iraq citizens, but the terrorists are going for iraq and not the American soil, this i believe was not his purpose, but it is a good thing for the majority of our citizens. I dont think the dems know how to handle this war on terror the right way, and they say we need a lot of international support, if im not mistakin France and Germany are the only ones in Europe who didnt want to go in, and i think later russia, but it seems to me we did have a majority of ppl on our side, but know after the fact there ppl have all changed there mind and are know all blaming bush,. I feel the the President should decide when to defend America not the United Nations.

You are satisfied with Bush's perfromance in the fight against terrorism? For one thing, the US doesn't have the majority of ANY people on its side. The populations of all the countries that joined the 'coalition of the willing' were massively opposed to the Iraq war and were just dragged into it by their governments who were bribed or threatened into going along with the US. This was true before the war and it is true now. Secondly, Bush policy has put Americans in much more danger now than they were before. His ham-fisted and under-manned invasion of Afghanistan allowed Osama Bin Ladin and large numbers of Al-Quaida operatives to escape, and his invasion of Iraq has swelled their ranks with massive numbers of new volunteers anxious to avenge themselves on the US for invading their country. The only reason terrorists are going to Iraq now is because there are lots of Americans there. Perhaps the families of the 1,000 Americans killed and 7,000 wounded in Iraq (so far) might disagree with you on this war having made them safer from terrorism. All it has done is taken 150,000 Americans from the safety of their homes and placed them in the middle of a country whose people hate them and want them dead. There weren't any anti-American terrorist groups in Iraq before the war, now there are dozens. Hardly an improvement.

 

[Glenn]

About the tax cuts, I certainly have not noticed any help from them. My checks aren't looking too much better since the tax cuts have taken effect, so I don't see how that can be such a good thing. Aren't I one of the people whom the tax cuts were supposed to help?

 

[meme9898]

Education is not underfunded: President Bush is investing more resources in America?s students than at any time in history. President Bush has provided more funding for K-12 education than any other Administration. There were states that had to give money back to the government because they had enough, if you a problem with education talk to some leader in the state because thats were most of the power lies, for these types of things.

 

[Brooker]

I don't know where you're getting your information from. Federal Funding for schools here (Seattle) was cut so much that the district was forced to phase out certain positions in the administration. Those positions just won't exist anymore! And these aren't extraneous positions. That means that the people who are left will have to take on the responsibilities the people in the phased out positions used to do plus the responsibilities they already have.

 

[meme9898]

Aside from those things, i'll respond later when i feel in the mood to


President Bush has dealt with more conflict in the last 4 years than any other president has seen in the last 35 years. We were attacked on American soil, that hasnt happened in this magnitude in a long, long time. Saddam was a evil dictator that murdered thousands of his own people. For you liberals into human and civil rights, think about the torture and rape that went on under Saddam's rule. To tax wealthy Americans more than the middle class is a blunder. Why are the wealthy more responsible for a productive America? Universal healthcare? Does that scare anyone? Since when did healthcare become a right? If the government pays for your healthcare ... they can take it away.

 

[Brooker]

meme9898 wrote....

President Bush has dealt with more conflict in the last 4 years than any other president has seen in the last 35 years.

And botched it every step of the way.

To tax wealthy Americans more than the middle class is a blunder. Why are the wealthy more responsible for a productive America?

They get more from the country, why shouldn't they give more back? Besides, maybe they should because they're the only ones who can. We can't tax a McDonald's worker any more than we already do, because then they wouldn't have anything.

Is your family wealthy? If you were from a poor family, you'd probably feel a little differently. Put yourself in their shoes.

In this big tribe we call America, it seems like we should be looking out for one another, but maybe I'm too idealistic.

Universal healthcare? Does that scare anyone? Since when did healthcare become a right?

It's a right in Canada.

If the government pays for your healthcare ... they can take it away.

So? If you don't give it, there's nothing to take away.

 

[meme9898]

"And botched it every step of the way."

I think not

"We can't tax a McDonald's worker any more than we already do, because then they wouldn't have anything."

Right and who want to raise taxes? The democrates, Who is the only person is decades if not ever who runs on the platform of raising taxes? John kerry, thats who

"It's a right in Canada."

And canada grows more and more socialistict all the time.

 

[senseiman]

Saddam was a evil dictator that murdered thousands of his own people. For you liberals into human and civil rights, think about the torture and rape that went on under Saddam's rule.

No, Sorry. I cannot let this stand unchallenged. It is among the weakest arguments among those used to justify the war, but when used to support the Republican party and attack liberals it is just unconscionable. Who the hell do you think was sending money, weapons and intelligence to Saddam when he was commiting all those massacres in the first place? It wasn't 'liberals', it was members of the current administration like Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, that is who. They helped support Saddam when he actually was a threat and while he was commiting the worst of his atrocities. If they had done something to stop him then it might have actually made a difference. Instead, they just helped him. Then, in 1991 when the first Bush administration (with a lot of members of this administration too) told the Shi'ites to rise up against Saddam what did those freedom -loving Republicans do? Abandoned them all to brutal deaths under Saddam's iron fist, while ordering the hundreds of thousands of US soldiers standing right next door to do NOTHING to help them! Then, 12 YEARS after the end of the last major atrocities and massacres commited by Saddam, George Jr. suddenly decides he is going to save the Iraqis from the evil tyrant? Even though there weren't any atrocities going on and Saddam was too weak to pose a threat to anyone? That is hypocritical bullshit at its worst.

If the government pays for your healthcare ... they can take it away.

Did you actually think about what you were saying before you wrote this? I ask because it makes no sense. You are saying you don't want government health care because they can take it away? But if you don't have it in the first place they can't take it away anyway, so ......Damn, I've gone cross-eyed trying to follow the logic of that one.

Anyway, even with universal health care you can get private insurance if you want it, so I don't see what the big deal is.

 

[meme9898]

i do want health care, its just saying it is a privlige so stop complaining about it.
Its not like i want them to take it away, plus its crazy to ever think they would

 

[senseiman]

"

Right and who want to raise taxes? The democrates, Who is the only person is decades if not ever who runs on the platform of raising taxes? John kerry, thats who

John Kerry is running on a platform of raising taxes? Well, that is news. I'd be much obliged if you'd point out to me where, in any of his speeches, public proclomations or campaign literature he has said anything about raising taxes.

And canada grows more and more socialistict all the time.

"socialistict" is not a word.

 

[blessed]

Kerry is running on raising taxes for the top 1 or 2 percent, and lowering them for the middle and lower classes, hence reducing the inequality that the USA has plenty of (ranks below only russia and some other country (so, 3rd) in the most unequal developed countries. I think about 55 were meassured).
This would only improve the situation of the Macdonalds worker as he would probly be in the lower to middle class tax bracket.

Bush's tax policy is, well, you've all played the game. if the gov spent less I wouldn't argue against these, since well, government intervention is bad... but sadly its not so, the gov spends more, creating unsustainable growth (in economics thats nearly as bad as the "R word" - recession)

Medicare -
makes drugs cheaper, for an estimated (umm, and this is a "low" figure) 1.7 trillion dollars for 20 years (figure expected to rise).
in poles before the bill was passed, only 4 percent of the people using healthcare ran into problems (very few of those were pensioners).
Most companies provide healthcare cover for their retirees, but now the government will do it as well, giving companies bigger profits.
so the reform is rather pointless as most people were fine before anyways, infact it was probably for the worse as there will be little improvement and lots to pay for.

Education - well, sure, there is more money being "spent" on education... e.g. Utah, which recieves 2.2 mill per year for education in the largest school district, as federal funding, will now need around 150 million. that sounds so good if the money is there, but guess what, its not!!! hahaha.
oh, and the reform is pretty dumb. waaaay too narrow: concentrate on only reading and maths? you can't really make well rounded beings here can you?
all pass grades are the same: even to disabled children (13% of all children being educated). this will mean that standards will fall as they will be decided depending on the weakest performers.
another problem: standardised testing and the schools funding is dependent on them. guess what this means? school will follow the cirriculum strictly, without elaborations or "extras" making for a very plain and boring education.
High achievers are not rewarded because only a minimum efficiency is required.
children attending a "failing" school are eligible to move to a good school. the move to better school policy was implemented in the 60's and 70's and creted a little problem known as "busing": tons of children commuting from poor to rich neighberhoods to get educated. sounds fine, if you like to commute, until space runs out in public schools for low-achievers.

found a cool site (use the links for more info)
http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache...46.html+"no+child+left+behind"+problems&hl=en

War - well, we know the cost... 200 bill $ and counting.
War is not winable, as terrorism is only a form of expression of dissagreement and so cannot be eradicated.

relations with europe, in one word, crap. (if any polititian says they are not, its only not to make them worse)

oh, and you high schoolers, who will be starting work when the massive tax hikes hit (to pay for the war, Medicare and No child left behind)... enjoy them.

aha, I remember, (this is a bit random). Does anyone watch CNN? you know when they say, umm, "many Iraqis do not agree with Mr. Bush's policies, but they do consider him a strong leader"? i love this statement because, well, surely this could be said about saddam, stalin, hitler and other dictators that ive missed out? (told you it was random )

 

[Lina Inverse]

About the tax cuts, I certainly have not noticed any help from them. My checks aren't looking too much better since the tax cuts have taken effect, so I don't see how that can be such a good thing. Aren't I one of the people whom the tax cuts were supposed to help?

Yes, you are - but that was just one of his uncountable lies to look good in the eyes of simple-minded persons. Actually, the only ones who really profix from these tax cuts are the super-rich, the 2%-3% richest in the US (like the Enron leaders) which are already so filthy rich they need more money really badly.

Federal Funding for schools here (Seattle) was cut so much that the district was forced to phase out certain positions in the administration. Those positions just won't exist anymore! And these aren't extraneous positions. That means that the people who are left will have to take on the responsibilities the people in the phased out positions used to do plus the responsibilities they already have.

It's not just Seattle, it's the same wherever you go. The reason: if the masses get too educated, they are a threat to Bush in that they could realize what crap he's doing all the time, so he has to make sure this doesn't happen by cutting down the education. This is just the beginning - it will get a whole lot worse should he get another term.

 

[Hachiko]

Neither! I vote for David Cobb of the Green Party!