How Can President Bush possibly lose in November?

[beer]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ghostt

Originally posted by: sandorski
Sorry, the Reserves were not needed. What was needed was a President with Intelligence. Those in Iraq are there unnecessarily.

it was not the reserves that clinton cut ,,it was our main military ,cut the navy down by more then half ,and cut down the cia down just as much,and yes kerry voted for it too

you see that is the problem people don't think that the president has any intelligence ,,and they was wrong then and they are wrong now
obviously you don't think so ,but it is debatable,,so lets see because we have not found weapons of mass destrution yet ,,you thing that we don't belong there ,,well how long did it take us to find saddams airforce that he had buried in the desert??well we would not have found them if the wind did not blow the sand off of the tail fins ,so look how big the jets are and how long it took to find them ,,and that was by accident

maybe we won't fimd WMD's but maybe we will ,,it is a whole lot easier to hide WMD's then it is to hide jets

if we found WMD's there ,would you then say that we belonged there?

The Reserves were not needed, nor were the Regulars.

No, the invasion should never have happened. The UN Inspectors were finding nothing from sites that were highly suspect based on US Intel, that alone should have been the sign that things were not as certain as the Bush Admin had believed. If Bush had Intelligence or Wisdom he would have reconsidered his stance, but he didn't and now the US Military(including Reserves) are maxxed out in Iraq. Clinton had nothing to do with Bush's error.

Why even bother replying? He's obviously trolling. He certainly doesn't want to take the time to refute the points I have already established, he's just going to recycle the same conservative propoganda between him gnawing off limbs like monkeyboy in the White House.

 

[Dari]

This whole surplus thing is actually quite depressing. No, it's not that I didn't know. It's just that Reagan populism has made the deficit look like it isn't really that big of a deal. Sadly, I doubt that middle America will ever care about the real health of the country's finances. Fortunately, we're not alone when it comes to debt. Our only advantage is our importance. Once that declines, real interest rates will go in the opposite direction.

EDIT: Oh yea, Beer, don't think that your argument has carried the day. I won't provide another rebuttal simply because I hate to argue with a keyboard. Furthermore, mixing opinion with facts, however dubious yours may have been, is also not my cup of tea. Perhaps we'll meet face-to-face whenever I drop by in Texas.

 

[mPartialOb]

There is one most compelling factor that should determine your vote come next election - SPLIT GOVERNMENT.

We gotta keep these spenders in check. Historically, the economy does well and spending is kept under control when we have a split government.

The rest is all politics.


[ I'm new here, but why do so many of you quote EVERY freakin post when you are only responding to the previous post ?!? You're killing my 28.8 ! ]

 

[Ghostt]

1) Patriot Act
It has most certainly not done more good than harm. It is being used against
people it was never intended to. Hell, someone that pocesses a single dose of
meth is charged with it under a WMD clause! And it is starting to be repealed by
the courts leads me to think that it was passed by Asscroft and Co. knowing that
eventually it would be overturned by the courts. It had a good intention but the
AG office are now prosecuting non-terrorists under terrorist-clauses and that is
what scares me the most.

so what is wrong with taking criminals off the street ,or are you for
criminals doing what ever that they want??

2) Writing discrimination back into the constitution
I disagree with this. I see no reason to explicitly halt homosexuals from
getting married. But, this proposal is a non-starter so I doubt that the
President will get anywhere with this resolution, even though he may strongly
believe in it.
Glad we're in concurrance

how is it now discrimination when it was not before? Is what Clinton done
discrimination too??

3) Disregarding the advice and reorganizing his own science research teams to
tell him the news he wants to hear
I don't know what you're talking about here but I doubt it doesn't have
anything to do with politics. Furthermore, it's had no major effect on the
scientific and economic industries.
<a class="ftalternatingbarlinklarge" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RESE.html?ex=1078290000&en=fe90efd6d401c77b&ei=5070" target="new">Scientists
Accuse White House of Distorting Facts (NY Times, free registration required)</a>

well any one can make accusations ,,so what have they proved ??

4) $500 billion deficit
Terrorist attacks, global war against terrorism, and a recession will force
any government to spend. This is common knowledge. The surplus never would've
paid of our national debt (and there was no logical reason to speculate either)
so I'm not surprised that the deficit has ballooned so much. But, with the
economy growing and less spending promised by the administration (this President
keeps his word), that deficit that Democrats have always been worried about<img src="http://forums.anandtech.com/i/expressions/rolleye.gif" border="0" width="17" height="17">
will eventually fall. What's worse, you seem to believe that John "the
ultra-liberal" Kerry will be any better. This man is as reliable and
trustworthy as a chronic liar.
I'm not going to touch this with a 10-foot pole, it has already been debated
in this thread

your right you can't touch it ,,you have no point to base your accusations
on ,,we all know that it is a deficit ,,but it is putting people back to
work

5) Lying - Where are the WMDs bush, huh? Remember that promise of NO NATION
BUILDING?
Iraq was no longer a regional threat, and this had nothing to do about
stability. There was never any evidence of harboring terrorists or WMDs. I can't
blame the CIA when the administration kept on prodding for data that the NSA and
CIA couldn't find. The administration wouldn't take no for an answer in this
case. It has been documented in the news numerous times that the administration
kept on urging the CIA to find more evidence, even though there initially was
none to support the administration's views. Don't blame the CIA - blame W

and just how do you know that? because they did not find the wmd's yet? if
some one did put the facts right up in your face ,you would just call it a lie
,look how long it took them to find Saddam's 42 jets that was buried in the sand, if
it was not for the sand storm uncovering the tail fins ,,would we have found
them?i doubt it .don't blame the CIA ,blame Clinton for cutting them down and
making the size of them so small .

6) Appointing John Ashcoft
You do realize this guy is so far off in right field that he had naked
statues covered in cloth because he found it offensive, right? He does not
represent mainstream american politics and should not have been appointed to a
job where that was a requirement

well he found it offensive to the viewers ,,what is wrong with that? maybe
more people should follow him ,lets see mainstream Americans want to legalize
pot ,so should he done that to?

7) Doing recess appoinments of circuit court judges to circumvent the will (and
better sense of) congress
Congress wasn't playing politics, they realized these judges were far too
conservative, once again, for mainstream appointments. Bush acted out of a
loophole and it is 'legal' in the same sense of what Ken Lay did to Enron was
'legal.' It's just a stall tactic that Bush did and nothing more, in an attempt
to hope that congress gains republican seats in the fall that will allow the
appointment to be approved in January 2005

If what Bush done was legal ,what is your complaint? would you be happy if
he done something that was illegal? maybe what congress is doing is legal to
,,but that does not mean that they are right too .what we need is some more
whacko judges in there to make laws instead of enforcing them

9) Not fixing social security
Bottom line is that his ass is making promises that are going to burden
future generations. It was fiscally irresponsible to do what he did

and just what is it that you are accusing him of? what is he irresponsible
about?

10) Immigration propositions
it doesnt bring them out of the woodwork; it binds them to a particular
employer for exploitation. The illegal market will still exist. I will defer any
further explanation to an article I wish you to read, which reflects my
sentiments exactly.
<a class="ftalternatingbarlinklarge" href="http://www.dailytexanonline.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=603454" target="new">Bush's
Immigration Plan Flawed</a>

and you take this article serious? did you at least check it out to
see if it was true or just something of some one's imagination? do you know the
site that you quoted? the author is Arpan Sura a computer
science/philosophy/government junior.

so now are you sure that this article is correct ?or do you like it
because it is what you want to believe?

11) As of a result of #3, complete disregard for the environment, for scientific
research, stem cells, underfunding the EPA while ballooning defense spending

Stem cells are a huge field of research and will yield far more beneficial
solutions than any other medical field. Too bad that Bush deems it 'immoral' but
will continue to let people die from basic diseses, such as the flu,
thousandfold each season.

what Bush did was put a limit on the stem cells that they could use ,, and
yes some one has to put some limits on it ,,you do know where stem cells come
from ,don't you ?

12) Encouraging Tom Delay's illegal texas redistricting
This is an issue that deserves it's own thread and shouldn't be debated here.
I haven't familiarized myself with the California situation and I will assume
that you are not familiar with the Texas one. Bottom line is that it borders on
gerrymandering - I am in the same district, in urban Austin, as a border farmer
is. That meets a lot of criteria for gerrymandering right there

lets see the democrats say it was illegal ,and the republicans say it was
legal ,,so what did the courts have to say about it?? did the courts tell the
democrats to go and run and hide in another state? it is fine when the democrats
do the rezoning ,,but illegal when the republicans do it ,,you have no point
here

13) 'Enemy Combatants' in clear violation of the Geneva Convention and then
bitching about the treatment of American POWs
Prove that it is in clear violation of the Geneva Convention. As for American
POWS, I don't know where you're from but in my humble opinion, it would be
blasphemous for any President or American citizen not to put our own first.

Bush and Powell cried when the Iraqis were showing dead americans on TV when
we were doing the exact same thing. Furthermore since the Taliban were a ruling
government in Afghanistan, that classifies them into POW status, not 'enemy
combatant.' All I need to do to prove that it is illegal is to prove that the
Taliban were the ruling government of Afghanistan and therefore made them
soldiers of the state. I don't think that is going to be hard considering that
Karzai is seen as the ruling government now and things were much mroe stable, if
oppressive, under the Taliban. I do not oppose the Afghanistan war because it
presented a clear and present danger to the citizens of this country - something
that Iraq did not.

when was we showing dead taliban on TV? we showed them handcuffed and
hooded .and if the president is doing wrong ,why hasn't any one stopped him?
well it seems like bush knows more and has advisors that says that he can call
them enemy combatants ,,so what makes you more knowledgeable then bush on this matter? are you a lawyer or something?

14) Shock and Awe
Personal attack #1. I am not anti-military; contrary, read the first 100
posts of the 235-long post thread entitled 'Indian AF kicked USAF @$$' in Off
Topic. I vigerously defend our military. However the idea of trying to
immediately overwhelm a sovreign nation *with air power* is just ridiculous -
and that is what 'shock and awe' was. And it completely failed. We won the
initial conflict with ground troops.

your something nice to talking about personal attacks ,,you hand out your
share of them ,,but then again that might be all right for you to day ,,lets
just say that we was trying to hit saddam first and be over with the war one two
three. but then again it is hard to scare a drug addict into surrendering

what is wrong with air power?? didn't we make Japan surrender with it?

15) Hypocracy of developing a tactical nuclear bunker buster while telling
everyone else in the world to cut back their inventories
Not if you expect other nations to do as we say, not as we do. The world
doesn't work with exceptionalism. They can achieve the same desired effect by
focusing on other parts of research, such as hypervelocity weapons from
near-earth orbits. It would still serve a national interest and not fall as
contraversial WMD elements. And secondly it would be a far more useful reearch
program, considering that there is a good chance we can actually use them one
day, instead of tactical bunker-busters that will sit in our inventory like the
3000 ICBMs that we have. But the ICBMs provide deterrence, a nuclear-tipped
bunker-buster does not. Developing one would serve no purpose since it could
never be used as long as we have an international system that condemns WMDs

so lets see Russia showed off it's new missiles last week that they
say can avoid our tracking ability to shoot them down , and we are just suppose
to sit back and do nothing

16) As a successor to #15, pulling out of the ABM treaty and wasting hundreds of
billions on a ballistic missile shield when our enemies now are just going to
bring a nuke on a container ship and level the western port cities.

Obviously I know this. I also know that the USSR has thousands of nukes
pointed at every city in the US. We kept the peace for 50 years with deterrence.
To assume Kim Jung would launch a nuke against one US city (with a good chance
of missing) and face complete and outright destruction of his capital (and only
major) city is foolish. He is crazy, but he is power-hungry and knows that we
have a 100% chance of destroying every building in his capital in retaliation.
Furthermore the engineers at Raytheon are encountering serious problems with a
land-based missile shield; it is much harder to hit a bullet with a bullet than
it would be to hit a bullet with energy as may be possible in 20 years - when
ICBM propogation becomes a real threat. Until then the major threat is suitcase
bombs which a system would not stop.

yea and we never knew that they would fly planes into our buildings either
,,if they can use donkey carts as a missile launcher why can't they use a
freighter as a nuclear launcher? or would you rather wait for another 911 ? by
the way how much money did Clinton waste on this project?

17) Where are the jobs, Bush? Motherfcueker?
Centuries of oursourcing, eh? You know, 100 years ago when the only way to
communicate across the atlantic was by ship?

does it make any difference how we communicated? does that mean that American
companies was not set up over seas?? doesn't this mean that our jobs was out
sourced? incase you didn't notice ,,the unemployment went down in january

18) Jenna Bush being a bitchy Theta here in Austin

You've got issues. Me thinks you need to get laid.
Personal attack #2. I'm actually surprised you replied to this

maybe he has a point or you would not be offensive about it ,, so what is
wrong with Jenna Bush? why should you have a problem with that? would you have a
problem with Al Gore jr and his excessive speeding in north carolina and
having drug equipment with him ? all he got was a little slap on the
wrist

19) Making enemies out of just about every former ally, including Western Europe
powers such as Germany, France, the general population of the UK (who are going
to vote Labour out and there goes the UK' official support of us)
Go to the UK and see if people there feel anything positive with Bush.
And time will run it's course on which of us is right - if they re-elect Labour
then I will concede defeat, but I suggest that may not be the case and a prime
implication from their deception over WMDs (remember the '45-minute 'claim of
WMDs to the UK? That's having the same effect as Bush's 'Mission Accomplished'
stunt had here)

yes and Mrs. Blair does not like bush either ,,so what? since when do we
govern this country by what another thinks?

well i fixed most of the non working html

 

[Ghostt]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Reserves were not needed, nor were the Regulars.

No, the invasion should never have happened. The UN Inspectors were finding nothing from sites that were highly suspect based on US Intel, that alone should have been the sign that things were not as certain as the Bush Admin had believed. If Bush had Intelligence or Wisdom he would have reconsidered his stance, but he didn't and now the US Military(including Reserves) are maxxed out in Iraq. Clinton had nothing to do with Bush's error.

you mean that the same report that clinton had that said that iraq still had WMD's means nothing?? so lets see bush is suppose to throw down what clintons report on iraq as being wrong??yea right

the reason why the troops are maxed out is because clinton cut the hell out of them actually they was finding things ,,none that was extreme but they was ,,the problem is that saddam brought up a list that said he had nothing ,,but he had missiles still that would go beyond what he was allowed ,,he had a drone plane that could have been used for biological weapons

the problem was that france was getting a bribe from iraq to protect them ,,the un was corrupt ,,why do you think that france dropped the billions of dollars of debt that iraq owed france?? because they would have to prove what they sold to iraq ,,a bill of ladin ,,france knew that they was guilty ,,they had a sweet illegal deal going on ,,bush ended up taking the right stance ,,just ask the iraqi people what they think of france

 

[Ghostt]

Originally posted by: beer
Why even bother replying? He's obviously trolling. He certainly doesn't want to take the time to refute the points I have already established, he's just going to recycle the same conservative propoganda between him gnawing off limbs like monkeyboy in the White House.

trolling??i don't think so ,,i have not even got warmed up yet ,,is this what you do??pound your self on your chest and call your self the beast and that you chased all the little trolls away?? well wake up ,,i'm here

your points are null and void ,,i personally like it when you linked to a college student story as the truth ,,i hope that you can do better then that in the future ,,you should learn to double check your sources

recycle propaganda ??yea that is what you do best

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: mPartialOb
There is one most compelling factor that should determine your vote come next election - SPLIT GOVERNMENT.

We gotta keep these spenders in check. Historically, the economy does well and spending is kept under control when we have a split government.

The rest is all politics.


[ I'm new here, but why do so many of you quote EVERY freakin post when you are only responding to the previous post ?!? You're killing my 28.8 ! ]

So you're saying the Democrats are the ones holding back expenses now since the Repubs are spending like drunken sailors? Since you're new here you don't own a share of that bridge but one of the support coloumns for the bridge.

 

[Bowfinger]

You guys shouldn't argue with Cad when he's trying to change the subject. He doesn't want to talk about Bush-lite's many flaws, so he diverts the discussion by focusing on the definition of "deficit". (What is "is"?) The more you argue with him, the more he wins, because this is not a discussion about the technicalities behind the federal budget.

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
They teach reading the first semester in your highschool - no?

If you go to a bad public highschool I'll repeat it for you -
"What I said was - there was NO surplus - PERIOD."

See? He isn't even pretending to address the subject of the thread. He's trying to change the subject.

Oh and don't forget this:
"Now he went on to make excuses for the gov'ts accounting practices and tried to "compare"(which wasn't my point) but lets..."

So reading comprehension would allow us to deduce that "comparing" Clinton to Bush wasn't any part of my point and that maybe my point was THAT THERE WAS NO SURPLUS.

Got it yet Mr.Frosh?

Care to continue? Or do you need to come up with another supposed "insult" by saying yapping about 1st semester high-school? Had enough of your little quip thrown back at you?

CkG

There are 100,000 ways to look at a budget the size of the United States. The point is that they have been computing budgets the same way for decades, and during Clinton's second term, there *was* a budget surplus by the way the United States does accounting. You are trying to compare a national debt (of the largest GDP in the world, obviously) to personal debt and that doesn't make economic sense, they have very little in common.

No -this isn't about debt - this is about budget deficits. If you spend more than you take in - you are in a deficit situation. Borrowing(IOUs) to pay for current spending doesn't suddenly mean you are running a surplus It doesn't matter how long the gov't has played the IOU game - it doesn't change what a deficit or a surplus is.

CkG

By the way Cad, you just contradicted yourself. You are describing cash-basis accounting. That's how you and I balance our checkbooks, but it's not the way businesses do accounting. The federal "surplus" was calculated using a form of cash-basis accounting. By ignoring future obligations, e.g., social security, the Fed under Clinton truly spent less than it took in. It wasn't borrowing anything; those IOUs were for future obligations. Therefore, it truly was running a surplus ... after a fashion.

By your definition, the Clinton surplus was real. Oops. The problem is you heard the Clinton-bashers sniffle, "Clinton didn't really have a surplus," and dutifully repeated it without understanding what it meant.

The difference is that businesses can't use cash accounting (with a few trivial exceptions). They must keep their books using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, a/k/a GAAP accounting. Under those rules, future obligations must be reflected in current earnings statements. The federal government, however, is not required to use GAAP accounting for its own finances. By Fed standards, the surplus was real. By GAAP standards, Clinton still ran a deficit, albeit a much smaller one than the Repulbican presidents before and after him.

Your confusion is understandable. Much of GAAP accounting is pretty foreign to people who haven't worked with it. There are a lot of things that are counter-intuitive to someone who's only worked with simple household finances, e.g, keeping a checkbook in the black. Perversely, that simplistic checkbook approach gave the Fed its surplus. The surplus was real -- or not -- depending on the bookkeeping rules one uses.



For the sake of harmony and to get this thread back on track, I encourage everyone to nod politely whenever Cad insists there was no surplus. He is right ... from one point of view. Instead, we can all agree Bush spends like a drunken sailor, increasing federal spending by about a trillion dollars a year ($1,000,000,000,000 per year) compared to Clinton, and that this only gets worse with all the future handouts Bush pushed. (Because by GAAP standards, we don't sweep those future obligations under the rug, right?)

In that spirit, according to an article I just read, Bush will NOT cut the deficit in half as claimed (by using cash accounting principles and ignoring future obligations). Those wacky liberals at Business Week project a $5 trillion ten-year deficit when including future expenses like Bush's Iraq costs, his continuing tax loan costs, and his Medicare "reform" costs.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ghostt

if we found WMD's there ,would you then say that we belonged there?

Yep!

 

[Ghostt]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ghostt

if we found WMD's there ,would you then say that we belonged there?

Yep!

just give them time ,,it is going to be a whole lot harder to find the WMD's then it is to find the jets ,,they was founds by accident when the wind uncovered the tail fins

catching bin ladin would almost guarantee that bush would get re-elected and i believe that he will be caught soon ,maybe in a few months

the WMD's will probably be found this summer which would mean that bush would be automatically guaranteed to win four more years ,,no matter how bad the economy is ,but then again if the economy does take a push to the good ,he may not need to find WMD's

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ghostt

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ghostt

if we found WMD's there ,would you then say that we belonged there?

Yep!

just give them time ,,it is going to be a whole lot harder to find the WMD's then it is to find the jets ,,they was founds by accident when the wind uncovered the tail fins

catching bin ladin would almost guarantee that bush would get re-elected and i believe that he will be caught soon ,maybe in a few months

the WMD's will probably be found this summer which would mean that bush would be automatically guaranteed to win four more years ,,no matter how bad the economy is ,but then again if the economy does take a push to the good ,he may not need to find WMD's

Well I doubt Iraq has the huge stockpiles of WMDs that that was claimed by the Dub to frighten Americans into supporting his and the Neocons excellent adventure there. Of course when it comes to those looking for Bush and his minions to regain any sort of credibility regarding their reckless adventurism, hope springs eternal.

I supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq when I was misled about their vast stockpiles of WMDs, their alleged ties to Al Qaeda and their so called advanced Nuclear Weapons Program. I don't know about others but when our countries leaders BS us into supporting war which is unessecary and costs us hundreds of American Lives, thousands of maimed Americans and billions of dollars, I no longer trust them and without that trust I can't in all honesty support them for another term. One can only imagine what they will do when they are Lame Ducks and don't need to worry about being re-elected.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Bow- You obviously forgot to read sir Walt.(I suggest you read his works - you may learn something)
And no I wasn't changing the subject - I stated a fact that contradicted someone's misguided assertion.
I understand you are trying to say something existed that didn't by trying to say I don't understand accounting and the differences between them, but as usual you are wrong. I know perfectly well that there are differences in the way budgets are handled but that still doesn't allow you or anyone else to claim there was a surplus. Now again - I will call people who wish to forward this idea that the really was a "surplus" on it every time wether you like it or not Bow. I'll also call you(and others) on your assumptions of what I'm saying. The point was simple - yet some people don't want to let go of what they were fed. I understand this "hide the money" scheme - and the numbers don't add up. There was no surplus. And unlike you Bowfinger (who only seems to want to play politics with the Budget) - I want to see REAL fiscal change within our gov't - not just lip service about balanced budgets and increasing taxes to "fix" it. The system needs FIXED no matter who is President. Hell - if kerry was actually for REAL fiscal change in the way things are done - he might have a shot at my support, but then again I know it's just political BS coming from a guy who doesn't know day to day where his stance is. Anyway - bleat on and on about Bush if you wish - my point still stands.

Now on to Mr.Frosh - This thread isn't about you or your little whine points about Bush. Your "points" are just rehashed rhetoric that we've discussed here many times. You obviously need to understand what a troll is and alot of other people here need a little refresher so here it goes. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are a troll. Just because they didn't answer all of your statements doesn't mean they are a troll. Just because you get your panties in a bunch every time they post doesn't mean they are a troll. Now people like BOBDN, Nitsoschitzo, HardWarrior, and that guy who posts things about "pigs"/cops are/were trolls. They couldn't control themselves and post in a fashion that incites hate and/or violence. Most of these people who incite reactions from people using extreme tactics are banned/vacationed but some with higher status are allowed to continue on their way. Sometimes ignoring works and sometimes calling them on thier actions works but I guarantee that some here have not recieved what is due them Ghostt is FAR from a troll unless you want to include yourself as one too. There has been little difference in your action from his. Think about it beer...are you a troll?

CkG

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Bow- You obviously forgot to read sir Walt.(I suggest you read his works - you may learn something)
And no I wasn't changing the subject - I stated a fact that contradicted someone's misguided assertion.
I understand you are trying to say something existed that didn't by trying to say I don't understand accounting and the differences between them, but as usual you are wrong. I know perfectly well that there are differences in the way budgets are handled but that still doesn't allow you or anyone else to claim there was a surplus. Now again - I will call people who wish to forward this idea that the really was a "surplus" on it every time wether you like it or not Bow. I'll also call you(and others) on your assumptions of what I'm saying. The point was simple - yet some people don't want to let go of what they were fed. I understand this "hide the money" scheme - and the numbers don't add up. There was no surplus. And unlike you Bowfinger (who only seems to want to play politics with the Budget) - I want to see REAL fiscal change within our gov't - not just lip service about balanced budgets and increasing taxes to "fix" it. The system needs FIXED no matter who is President. Hell - if kerry was actually for REAL fiscal change in the way things are done - he might have a shot at my support, but then again I know it's just political BS coming from a guy who doesn't know day to day where his stance is. Anyway - bleat on and on about Bush if you wish - my point still stands.

<me>Nods politely.</me>

What about Dub's $5 trillion deficit over 10 years?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Bow- You obviously forgot to read sir Walt.(I suggest you read his works - you may learn something)
And no I wasn't changing the subject - I stated a fact that contradicted someone's misguided assertion.
I understand you are trying to say something existed that didn't by trying to say I don't understand accounting and the differences between them, but as usual you are wrong. I know perfectly well that there are differences in the way budgets are handled but that still doesn't allow you or anyone else to claim there was a surplus. Now again - I will call people who wish to forward this idea that the really was a "surplus" on it every time wether you like it or not Bow. I'll also call you(and others) on your assumptions of what I'm saying. The point was simple - yet some people don't want to let go of what they were fed. I understand this "hide the money" scheme - and the numbers don't add up. There was no surplus. And unlike you Bowfinger (who only seems to want to play politics with the Budget) - I want to see REAL fiscal change within our gov't - not just lip service about balanced budgets and increasing taxes to "fix" it. The system needs FIXED no matter who is President. Hell - if kerry was actually for REAL fiscal change in the way things are done - he might have a shot at my support, but then again I know it's just political BS coming from a guy who doesn't know day to day where his stance is. Anyway - bleat on and on about Bush if you wish - my point still stands.

<me>Nods politely.</me>

What about Dub's $5 trillion deficit over 10 years?

It doesn't have anything to do with my point. Thanks for playing.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled America/Bush hating.

CkG

 

[leeboy]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dari
I swear to God, this election is Bush's to lose. The economy riding high because of increases in productivity (and, hence, efficiency). That will force companies to start hiring workers sooner or later to keep up with economic growth.

Second, compared to Kerry, Bush is a much more solid figure that has done more to unite Democrats and Republicans than many people give him credit for. It's very difficult for Democrats to attack a President who has mastered Washington politics by sacrificing some minor issues so long as Congress votes for his big ideas.

Third, the President has taken a lot of Democratic mantles and turned them into law. Issues such as medicare, Israel, and education, just to name a few. Hell, until Howard Dean came around, Edwards and Kerry were never this viscerally critical of the President. In fact, this anger came from the fringes of the Democratic Party, not middle America. Now, it has affected the leading candidates.

With John Kerry looking like an older Howard Dean, albeit with a better handle on his emotions, I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats have Buyer's Remorse later on this year. In our desperation to find an "electable" candidate that can defeat Bush, most Democrats forgot that John Edwards was a successful trial lawyer (hint!) from the South.

With angry Vietnam veterans protesting outside his headquarters, special interests lining his pockets, Edward Kennedy (his mentor) on his dick, ultra-liberal Senate record, and a career of flip-flopping on everything, is this a man Democrats want running against a proud and confident Texas Republican?

I'm voting for Kerry

Let me guess, because you're desperate to see Bush go, right? Hell, either you don't know Kerry's history or you don't care, so long as Bush is out of office, right? Do you think America feels the same as you?

Pretty much the same reason you twits voted for Bush in 2000. Get over it. To the original poster, your boy has NO chance. He will loose the popular AND the electoral this year. The end is nigh.

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
I like Bush. I think he's the best candidate for controlling the country. He's done a good job so far, despite the efforts of many, and I think that he will continue to do so.

I never liked the man until I met him back in '99. Then, as today, he looked and acted confident. He also has that "reality distortion field" that people believe Steve Jobs exerts. Unless you're an ultra-liberal, it's really hard to hate the President. In fact, he embodies most Southerners I meet: honest, proud and cool (in a cowboy sort-of way). My gf and some of her gay (male) friends love to hate him. Her gay friends think he's too straight. I think deep-down, they admire him:Q.

I think deep down, you want to have his babies.

Pretty dumb ones at that.


It shocks me that in a nation of about 280 million people, with the best unversities in the world, and with one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world, we have to pick among morons to lead our nation. One is a certifiable idiot with probably a 1.8 college GPA, and the other is so lackluster that the best he can do is put off people. It's pretty sad.

 

[zantac]

Originally posted by: AEB
Also keep in mind that the supposed "surplus" if there ws one is from the previous Bush, its a cycle Republicans get the economy on track, Democrats ruin it. Granted the current Bush has been trying to play politcs too much but overall hes done well.

As for the veto comment made by Zantac , i wasnt going to waste my time stating the obvious but if the president vetos congress too much then none of his bills will get passed and the liberal media would spin it as the president not cooperating with congress. Politics, we need a president that wont play them and Kerry is DEFINATLY NOT the person. Sharpton on the otherhand is at least straightforward.

Also you can't make a statment like "there was a surplus" without citing something, as for my post most of my ideas are well documented in the book i referenced.

Clinton didnt cooperate with congress. He bitched the most powerful reublican leaders. Surely Bush could work with his OWN PARTY. All the president has to do
is ask for something and about 80% of the majority would be for it. The other 15 or so perecent the Majority leader or the Whip could take care of. Thats what they are there for.

Every message I have read of yours reads like an incoherent version of the GOP's lastest talking points. Stop with the partisan group-think. Put down Sean Hannity's latest trash and think on your own for god's sake.