PDA

View Full Version : Bush Guard info.



Sithray
9th September 04, 09:21 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/09/bush.guard.ap/index.html

People who support Bush but bag on Kerry for his service make me sick.

joen00b
9th September 04, 10:09 AM
It seems to me that since they were rotating pilots out of Vietnam, they would be rotating them INTO Vietnam. I now think he skipped his physical so he couldn't be rotated into active duty in Vietnam.

Seriously, look at what we have today, the National Guard going into Iraq as police officers in a hostile environment. I'm not up on that side of 'Nam, but I'm sure they did rotate the Guard into the field of battle. He was scared of going to war, but has no problem sending off thousands for monetary gain.

Classic Chickenhawk.

Merauk
9th September 04, 10:23 AM
Kerry will lose the election because he played the Vietnam card.

Chantress
9th September 04, 10:50 AM
I thought u liberals liked people who avoided war. You voted for Clinton twice in a row.

joen00b
9th September 04, 10:50 AM
Clinton was smart, he became a Rhodes Scholar to get out of Vietnam. Bush straight dodged the service any way he could and had daddy helping him the whole way.

Chantress
9th September 04, 10:53 AM
So the answer is yes, you like people who avoid going to war. After all, you must realize, given all that you have posted...there is no way Bush could be smart enough to be a Rhodes Scholar. Are you trying to descriminate against the unintelligent. Elitist bastards!!!

joen00b
9th September 04, 10:57 AM
Ya ever hear that old saying: Would you feel comfortable knowing your doctor was a C and D student?

Well, our president is, and it shows...

Forget all of Clintons infidelity issues and ask yourself if he was good for the country. he was, he created jobs, boosted the economy, and promoted trade. It's all gone down hill fast since George took office. Just him taking office caused the stock market to dip hard. Go research it.

Chantress
9th September 04, 11:06 AM
You are avoiding your own elitism. You try to get him on avoiding war, but defend Clinton for doing it. It is a double standard no matter how you try to frame it. As far as the downturn in the market. Blaming Bush for that is about as inteligent as me blaming you for the terrorist activity in Russia last week. I KNOW it is all your fault, I just have no imperical evidence to prove it!

izedaman
9th September 04, 11:19 AM
Kerry plays the Nam card and it back fires on him with swift boat people, hes the one that came out saying hes the all mighty vet.. and the democrats try to shut the swift boat people up cause its hurting him.. Bush isnt baseing his campaign on the fact he was in the national guard, that was 30+ years ago, and like Bush said about the swift boats, Kerry served honorably, now lets move on.
But now they wanna jump on Bush for dodgeing.. I think its time to get down to some real issuses for this generation, and get out of the past, and I feel most of america feels the same. If they dont.. help us..

The debates, one on one, should be good.. lets see how they do under pressure fireing back and forth at eachother.

joen00b
9th September 04, 11:30 AM
You are avoiding your own elitism. You try to get him on avoiding war, but defend Clinton for doing it. It is a double standard no matter how you try to frame it. As far as the downturn in the market. Blaming Bush for that is about as inteligent as me blaming you for the terrorist activity in Russia last week. I KNOW it is all your fault, I just have no imperical evidence to prove it!

I didn't defend Clinton, I just said he was smart and took a Rhosdes Scholarship. He skipped out on Vietnam as well, but his was not near as shady as Bush.

And, yes, I am a better man than our president, I can look down my nose at him. I am his intellectual and morale superior.

Mesmer
9th September 04, 01:12 PM
Bush is a fucktard. Now that its clear that he did not live up to his contract with the National Guard, it is especially ironic that he is stretching the NG to its breaking point. Imagine what would happen if all the National Guard soldiers tried to do what he did.

Shorrtee McHeals
9th September 04, 01:51 PM
And, yes, I am a better man than our president, I can look down my nose at him. I am his intellectual and morale superior.

Pics of your degree from an Ivy League school plz.

joen00b
9th September 04, 02:40 PM
I didn't go to an Ivy League school, I didn't need my daddy to buy my degree for me.

Define Irony:

George W. Bush saying it's wrong to use legacy as a reason to be admitted into a school.

Chantress
9th September 04, 03:13 PM
Bush is a fucktard. Now that its clear that he did not live up to his contract with the National Guard, it is especially ironic that he is stretching the NG to its breaking point. Imagine what would happen if all the National Guard soldiers tried to do what he did.

You do not get honorably discharged by breaking your contract.

Thespis
9th September 04, 03:25 PM
I didn't defend Clinton, I just said he was smart and took a Rhosdes Scholarship. He skipped out on Vietnam as well, but his was not near as shady as Bush.

And, yes, I am a better man than our president, I can look down my nose at him. I am his intellectual and morale superior.

But his spelling superior would be questionable! :)

Thespis
9th September 04, 03:38 PM
Bush is a fucktard. Now that its clear that he did not live up to his contract with the National Guard, it is especially ironic that he is stretching the NG to its breaking point. Imagine what would happen if all the National Guard soldiers tried to do what he did.

Imagine if all soldiers coming back from Nam did what Kerry did, turn around and bash the rest of their fellow soldiers. Military service and politics are always going to be a volatile combination. I really don't care on either Kerry side or Bush side what happened 30+ years ago. And Kerry is the one who's been dredging it up. He's the one who pointed to his military service and then got attacked because his pointing to it apparently wasn't well thought out.

Bush has several times said Kerry served honorably and to leave the past in the past. Kerry then also calls into question Bush's National Guard service. Problem being, most people don't care about 30+ years ago and the polls are showing this. The election will show it also. Granted perhaps Bush wants to leave the past in the past because of his past. However, Bush admitted 4 years ago and has admitted since then that in his youth he made some very poor choices with a few things. He didn't shy away from saying that he'd made mistakes and has learned from them and has shown himself to stick to his current views / beliefs / issues.

Kerry on the other hand can't make his mind up about what he believes or supports. That alone is enough to make me want Bush over Kerry in office. It isn't a case of a person being allowed to change their mind either. Kerry didn't just change his stance on an issue or two and then stick to his change. On the war he's went back and forth many times. The impression he gives is that he doesn't want to commit too strongly to anything in hopes of getting votes from both sides of the issues and then he can do what he wants if he were to get in office. Problem is, people want clear, committed, and decisive platforms.

joen00b
9th September 04, 03:52 PM
Yeah, sitting at work, I have a limited time to make posts, and to be quite honest, I let my mistakes show, I don;t have 15 of my friends log in and inundate the boards with false information after I fix my post to claim it never happened then have them submit ten stories about someone else on the boards so they'll soon forget about my mistake.

But, that's just me. And as for spelling, I guarantee I am a better speller, he can't even talk half the time!

Buzman
9th September 04, 03:55 PM
You do not get honorably discharged by breaking your contract.

You just fell for Republican spin hook, line and sinker.

John Allen Muhammad, convicted last November for his participation in the D.C. sniper shootings, served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1978-1985, where he faced two summary courts-martial. In 1983, he was charged with striking an officer, stealing a tape measure, and going AWOL. Sentenced to seven days in the brig, he received an honorable discharge in 1985.

joen00b
9th September 04, 03:57 PM
I really don't care on either Kerry side or Bush side what happened 30+ years ago. And Kerry is the one who's been dredging it up.

Hold on here. kerry borught it up? Excuse me, but every single conservative in the fucking country has been harping on these facts for the last 8 months! Half the time when you go to Bush's website, it mentions more about kerry than it does Bush!

Get your facts straight, then come back and play, bro.

Chantress
9th September 04, 04:32 PM
Uhh Joe...Kerry has been harping on his military service for ages. The satirical piece about Bush vs Kerry makes fun of both sides, and points out that Kerry has been harping on his military record for a LONG time. When is the last time you heard him say elect me because I am the guy who voted for XXXXX. He just doesnt do it. The guy has offered the American nation ZERO reason to vote for him other than that "I am NOT G.W. and I am a War Hero!" He called for a "play nice" campaign and then went out the very next morning and started smearing.

On another note, I challenge anyone to give me a quote where G.W. demeans the honorable service of Kerry. Fire up those search engines, but I bet even google cant help you with this one. The people doing it are the 527s, and as far as they go there is only ONE of them that has had any real impact since campaign reform was instituted. It appears ya'll are just jealous that the only one that actually made a difference is the one that was started against your candiate. Sucks 2 b u =)

Thespis
9th September 04, 05:41 PM
Yeah, sitting at work, I have a limited time to make posts, and to be quite honest, I let my mistakes show, I don;t have 15 of my friends log in and inundate the boards with false information after I fix my post to claim it never happened then have them submit ten stories about someone else on the boards so they'll soon forget about my mistake.

But, that's just me. And as for spelling, I guarantee I am a better speller, he can't even talk half the time!


LoL joe, I was just teasing ya about the spelling. I definitely wouldn't bet on him being a better speller.

joen00b
9th September 04, 05:43 PM
I'll take that challenge! Watch any Swift Boat ad. you see, the backers are personal friends of GW and very large contributors to his campaign. To say he didn't know of this would be like saying you didn't know what kind of car your friend drives. IT's assinine.

Bush said it proxy through his friends. His campaign manager let it go on for weeks before he had Bush recant it too! That gave him the higher ground to walk away on even though he helped instigate it (which of course can't be proved), and allowed him to be squeaky clean Mr Nice Guy and his CLOSE PERSONAL FRIENDS to be the jerks in the scenario.

Thespis
9th September 04, 05:46 PM
Hold on here. kerry borught it up? Excuse me, but every single conservative in the fucking country has been harping on these facts for the last 8 months! Half the time when you go to Bush's website, it mentions more about kerry than it does Bush!

Get your facts straight, then come back and play, bro.


Get more information about what I was talking about, and then come back and play, heh.

I was talking about Kerry being the one to initiate bringing things up from 30+ years ago. I am NOT talking about whether the conservatives bring up Kerry and respond to the things he first brought up. Bush's references to the stuff from 30+ years ago have been just that, responses. Kerry opened the door to the shitstorm. The conservatives have simply been taking advantage of his blunders. I think it's safe to say that in politics, things don't simply go away by ignoring them. If your opponent makes a claim, you tend to make an effort to refute it.

joen00b
9th September 04, 05:47 PM
BAH! I'm too busy to have these conversations, I'll catch you in GC, RARARARARAR!

Thespis
9th September 04, 05:49 PM
Hehe, I understand the frustration of being busy. Fortunately for me, I don't have to deal with that today.

Luko
9th September 04, 05:55 PM
deleted cause it hot a red rep

Phrost
9th September 04, 05:58 PM
I'd rather vote for someone who was a flake when he was young, than a traitor with a leftist political agenda at the same age.

Kerry met with representatives from North Vietnam, on his own accord, while still serving as a Naval officer.

That's pure treason, I don't care how much you want to spin it.

Merauk
9th September 04, 06:27 PM
Kerry met with representatives from North Vietnam, on his own accord, while still serving as a Naval officer.

Ok I got to see a link on this one.

Kiko
9th September 04, 06:41 PM
www.stolenhonor.com

imported_Blazer
9th September 04, 06:53 PM
i don't blame him, i wouldn't have gone to war most likly, and i would have tried almost anything to avoid it. basically I'd rather we get nuked or i get executed for desertion or something then go to war. I'd even go so far as to drink so much I'd die of alcohol poisoning or I'd just get so high and enjoy it for awhile then I'd make myself OD or something. Yea i'll admit it has partly to do with my fear of war.I'd rather die in some nice way high out of my mind then trying to kill other people, while shit fucks i don't care about sit at home watching TV and masturbating. also has to do with the fact that most of the time i don't feel pride in our country or care about the people who live next to me.

Just being honest, theres very few people i'd be willing to die for, i wouldnt die for our country, i wouldnt die for any president we have had in history, i wouldnt die to free the slaves, i wouldnt die for the church. I'd kill/die for my family (mom dad sister) but it would have to be directly like jumping some guy with a gun pointed at them.

Because i feel this way i have alot of respect for what they did.

Mesmer
9th September 04, 08:01 PM
Vote for whoever you like.

I will take the guy who has actually experienced combat, the guy who volunteered for combat duty and knows what it means to risk your life for your country over some dimwit president's son who let osama walk, invaded iraq, and leveraged our future with the largest deficit in history. I will take Kerry any day of the week.

imported_Blazer
9th September 04, 08:19 PM
Vote for whoever you like.

I will take the guy who has actually experienced combat, the guy who volunteered for combat duty and knows what it means to risk your life for your country over some dimwit president's son who let osama walk, invaded iraq, and leveraged our future with the largest deficit in history. I will take Kerry any day of the week.

i respect WHAT he did, but serving in the military doesnt excused all the stupid shit that the person has done or make them a better person pe say.

The fact he was a so called "war hero" doesnt mean enough or balance out some of the decisions he made or didnt make while in the senate, or make him more worthy because people do change alot in 30 years.

Phrost
9th September 04, 09:21 PM
Vote for whoever you like.

I will take the guy who has actually experienced combat, the guy who volunteered for combat duty and knows what it means to risk your life for your country over some dimwit president's son who let osama walk, invaded iraq, and leveraged our future with the largest deficit in history. I will take Kerry any day of the week.

Hey, if you want to look at it that way.

I see it as voting for someone who fucked up when they were young but got their shit together and lead our country through one of its roughest times, over someone who abused the 'three strikes and you're out' purple heart rule to get out of Vietnam for little more than scratches, and who's had an unflenching thirst for political power that he'd achieve by any means necessary even changing his opinion when needed.

Kerry is a pussy who consistently voted to undermine the strength of the armed forces. You can't deny this.

He has no business being commander in chief of anything other than hippie fucks looking for handouts... and that's not MY country.

Phrost
9th September 04, 09:43 PM
Ok I got to see a link on this one.

Kerry went to a Paris meeting to discuss how his group could for the North Vietnamese, and knowingly, directly violated UCMJ Article 104 part 904 (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl104.htm), and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=953).




Kerry and Fonda in the Communists' Hall of Fame

Kerry's anti-war activism and his meetings with the communists had a big impact, according to Corsi.

"Vietnamese communists would not have won the war without John Kerry. They were cultivating his protest activity with the VVAW," Corsi said.

Corsi said the Vietnamese communists have shown their gratitude to Kerry by displaying a photo of him at Ho Chi Minh City's Protestors Hall of the War Remnants Museum. The photo of fellow anti-war activist and actress Jane Fonda also appears in the Women's Museum in Saigon.

"As soon as [Kerry] came onto the seen, [the Vietnamese communists] latched on to him like bees on to honey. [The communists] said, 'This is a guy who tells our story, it will undermine the sympathy for the war in America,'" Corsi added.


Source: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/4/155621.shtml

...

Could you imagine what it must have been like for an American POW in Vietnam to hear Kerry's voice broadcast by Hanoi Hannah, calling them the "army of Gengis Khan"?

And you people seriously want to vote for this guy?

izedaman
9th September 04, 09:46 PM
Get over the past, get over 527's...
Lets hear about health care.. last I heard they were both for
the government run health care, where everyone has free healthcare...
am I the only one that see this to be a huge problem?

Phrost
9th September 04, 09:58 PM
The guy's running his entire campaign based on his "War Hero" status making him better than Bush.

It's not irrelevant, in the least, that he was a traitor.

But even if you ignore this, you can't ignore his extremist liberal voting record in the Senate, where he tried to hamstring our military.

And I'm not happy with Bush's centrist leanings towards nationalized health care. I sure as fuck do not want to have my money forcibly taken from me to pay for bypass surgery for a lazy piece of crap who smokes and eats sausages like they're going out of style.

Here's an idea: Get rid of health insurance completely, make people save for their own fucking hospital bills. This will a.) reduce the costs of medical care by forcing competition in the free market when people actually have to spend their own money instead of "someone else's" which is the case with HMOs, and b.) not penalize people for being successful by forcing them to burn portions of the money they've earned in support of shitbags they don't know.

I paid $12K in taxes last year ABOVE my withholdings, while the stupid, lazy, and untalented get refunds (the poor don't pay federal income taxes, despite the rantings of the socialist hippie leftards).

And Kerry wants to REPEAL Bush's piddly tax cut?

It's my fucking money, and it's none of your fucking business to tell me how to spend it.

Xesor
9th September 04, 11:05 PM
For someone who once claimed to not take sides, and liked poking fun at both conservatives and liberals..I'd have to say you flip-flopped on that Joe.

December
10th September 04, 12:51 AM
(the poor don't pay federal income taxes, despite the rantings of the socialist hippie leftards).

Quoted for posterity.

90% of the people I talk to on a regular basis complain about this even though they're in the bottom bracket.

Zeta
10th September 04, 08:33 AM
Vote for whoever you like.

I will take the guy who has actually experienced combat, the guy who volunteered for combat duty and knows what it means to risk your life for your country over some dimwit president's son who let osama walk, invaded iraq, and leveraged our future with the largest deficit in history. I will take Kerry any day of the week.
So you are going to vote for the guy that is a traitor, ADMITTED war criminal that should be in jail. You wouldn't vote the guys in iraq who put underwear on prisoners heads to office would you? Why the hell would you vote a guy that by his own words, burned villages, shot illegal weapons in no fire zones, as well as a few other war crimes.

Instead you are going to kick out the guy who has done the job well for the last 3.5 years. Got rid of an evil dictator, is establishing a free nation in the middle of a terror happy area. Started the economy back growing from a recession he inherited.

Ya, good choice there.

Chantress
10th September 04, 08:52 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131961,00.html

Bush Piloted Guard Trainers Before He Quit

Friday, September 10, 2004



WASHINGTON — George W. Bush (search) began flying a two-seat training jet more frequently and twice required multiple attempts to land a one-seat fighter in the weeks just before he quit flying for the Texas Air National Guard (search) in 1972, his pilot logs show.

The logs show Bush flew nine times in T-33 trainers in February and March 1972, including eight times in one week and four of those only as a co-pilot. Bush, then a first lieutenant, flew in T-33s only twice in the previous six months and three times in the year ending July 31, 1971.

The records also show Bush required two passes to land an F-102A fighter on March 12 and April 10, 1972. His last flight as an Air National Guard pilot was on April 16.

Meanwhile, questions were raised Thursday about the authenticity of newly unearthed memos purporting to have been written by one of Bush's commanders in 1972 and 1973. The memos, which were publicized by CBS News on its "60 Minutes" program, say Bush ignored a direct order from a superior officer and lost his status as a Guard pilot because he failed to meet military performance standards and undergo a required physical exam.

The network defended the memos, saying its experts who examined the memos concluded they were authentic documents produced by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian (search).

But Killian's son, one of Killian's fellow officers and an independent document examiner questioned the memos Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said he doubted his father would have written an unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review.

"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

The personnel chief in Killian's unit at the time also said he believes the documents are fake.

"They looked to me like forgeries," said Rufus Martin. "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years." Killian died in 1984.

Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines said the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software. Lines, a document expert and fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, pointed to a superscript — a smaller, raised "th" in "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron" — as evidence indicating forgery.

Microsoft Word automatically inserts superscripts in the same style as the two on the memos obtained by CBS, she said.

"I'm virtually certain these were computer generated," Lines said after reviewing copies of the documents at her office in Paradise Valley, Ariz. She produced a nearly identical document using her computer's Microsoft Word software.

The Defense Department released Bush's pilot logs this week under pressure from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by The Associated Press. The logs do not explain why Bush was flying T-33s or why he twice needed multiple approaches to make landings.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Thursday said he had no information on the reasons behind the multiple-approach landings or the surge in training-jet flights.

"He did his training and was honorably discharged," Duffy said.

Former Air National Guard officials contacted by the AP said there could be reasons for the trainer flights and multiple-approach landings which have nothing to do with Bush's pilot skills.

Bush could have flown T-33s so many times because his unit did not have enough F-102A jets available that week, for example, said retired Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd a former head of the Air National Guard. Another former Air National Guard chief, retired Maj. Gen. Paul A. Weaver, said he saw nothing unusual about Bush making more than one landing attempt.

"It doesn't mean anything to have multiple approaches," Weaver said.

Bush's Vietnam-era Air National Guard service became a focus of Democratic criticism this week amid a flurry of new reports about his activities. Democrats say Bush shirked his National Guard duties, a claim Bush denies.

Republican critics have accused Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, of fabricating the incidents which led to his five medals.

Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard in 1968, serving more than a year on active Air Force duty while being trained to fly F-102A jets. He was honorably discharged from the Guard in October 1973 and left the Air Force Reserves in May 1974.

The first four months of 1972 are at the beginning of a controversial period in Bush's Guard service. After taking his last flight in April 1972, Bush went for six months without showing up for any training drills. In September 1972 he received permission to transfer to an Alabama Guard unit so he could work on a political campaign there.

That May, Bush also skipped a required yearly medical examination. In response, his commanders grounded Bush on Aug. 1, 1972.

Bush's pilot logs showed regular training in the F-102A until Feb. 9, 1972, when he flew 1.4 hours as the pilot of a T-33. After seven more flights in the F-102A, Bush made eight more T-33 flights between March 9 and March 15, including the four as co-pilot.

He flew an F-102A on March 12 and eight more times in April 1972.

Kiko
10th September 04, 09:14 AM
Perhaps the key to this entire issue is that December's and Zeta's avs aren't bouncing in sync. Arrange that and it'll all fall into place. Really.

joen00b
10th September 04, 10:51 AM
For someone who once claimed to not take sides, and liked poking fun at both conservatives and liberals..I'd have to say you flip-flopped on that Joe.

Well, I can't see myself voting for Bush after all is said and done. The hypocrisy and lies has gotten to be too much, not to mention how dirty they are runnign their campaign. As usual, there are more pictures of Kerry on George Bush's official Re-Election campaign Website than there are of Bush. The entire campaign is built on how bad Kerry is, not what Bush os about.

His speech at the convention was very hollow, he made alot of empty promises, just like his father did, and has no plan of attack to take care of this stuff.

Here's an idea George, quit promising us things you should have taken care of in your first term! Add in how his programs are complete failures, and we have a bonafide failure sitting in the White House, one I'm not about to let fuck up THE WORLD, not just our country, anymore than he already has. Let's get him out of office so he can go back to bankrupting businesses instead of our country's international credibility and economy.

Phrost
10th September 04, 11:24 AM
So you are going to vote for the guy that is a traitor, ADMITTED war criminal that should be in jail. You wouldn't vote the guys in iraq who put underwear on prisoners heads to office would you? Why the hell would you vote a guy that by his own words, burned villages, shot illegal weapons in no fire zones, as well as a few other war crimes.

Instead you are going to kick out the guy who has done the job well for the last 3.5 years. Got rid of an evil dictator, is establishing a free nation in the middle of a terror happy area. Started the economy back growing from a recession he inherited.

Ya, good choice there.

Any of the resident Leftards want to respond to this, or are you just so desperate to get a fellow Leftard in office that you'll compromise on such a small issue as TREASON?

Merauk
10th September 04, 11:42 AM
Any of the resident Leftards want to respond to this, or are you just so desperate to get a fellow Leftard in office that you'll compromise on such a small issue as TREASON?

I think the same could be said about the people on the right, desperate to overlook all of this Administrations shortfalls to keep Kerry out. Personally I think at this point Bush will be re-elected because Kerry decided to pick a fight he was vulnerable on. There are plenty of issues (real issues) such as the economy, foreign policy, and Iraq that he could take Bush to task on and just fails to do so. Overall his campaign has been one of failure.

What want on thirty years ago isn't relevant and Kerry made a mistake (and a major one) by digging it up. What is relevant is what is going on now, and I am willing to take a waffler as President as opposed to a person who said God told him to attack Iraq.

Phrost
10th September 04, 11:47 AM
I don't care who Bush thinks told him to attack Iraq. Whoever he's listening to is right.

Chantress
10th September 04, 12:40 PM
I don't care who Bush thinks told him to attack Iraq. Whoever he's listening to is right.


Hold on....did Phrack just say God is right?

Phrost
10th September 04, 12:59 PM
No, I said the imaginary voice in GW's head that he attributes to "God" is right.

Psychology 101: Believe in something enough, and it will be real for you, despite what's real for everyone else.

The mind's a powerful thing; too powerful for some people.

But hey, I can't deny I agree with the voices in his head. If he wanted to give the credit to Harvey, a 6' rabbit, it wouldn't make me any difference.

Zeta
10th September 04, 01:26 PM
I think the same could be said about the people on the right, desperate to overlook all of this Administrations shortfalls to keep Kerry out. Personally I think at this point Bush will be re-elected because Kerry decided to pick a fight he was vulnerable on. There are plenty of issues (real issues) such as the economy, foreign policy, and Iraq that he could take Bush to task on and just fails to do so. Overall his campaign has been one of failure.

What want on thirty years ago isn't relevant and Kerry made a mistake (and a major one) by digging it up. What is relevant is what is going on now, and I am willing to take a waffler as President as opposed to a person who said God told him to attack Iraq.
Name some of the shortfalls you are big on. Me personally. I'm going to vote for the man who stood up and lead the country. You might not agree with him on everything and I don't. But he took a stance and didn't stray from it. He said this is the way we are going and he lead us. Key word there is LEAD. President = leader. Kerry couldn't lead a turd out of his ass. His entire life has been about gaining more political power, not doing anything worth a damn.

As to your comments about me blindly voting for Bush. Believe me. I have looked at Kerry's record and I'm not just voting for Bush. I'm voting against Kerry because he has voted for every tax increase, against every tax reduction. He has voted against 90% of the weapon projects that our armed forces today use. He has voted to eliminate intelligence. All he wants to do is take more of my money for useless shit that doesn't help me any. Why would I ever consider voting for this man?

In my eyes his history proves it all. You can't argue his voting record because it is a bigger loser then arguing his war record as you so elequently pointed out. Bush's record is reducing my taxes, removing a horrible threat from the world. (at a cost, whether you agreee with if it was worth it or not, I can't see how you can argue that the world is better without Saddam and his ilk) He has moved the economy back in the right direction after a pretty major historic event that helped to trash it. I'm not looking back 20 years here. I'm looking back only a few and it is easy to see that Bush is by far the better person for the job.

Another point you make is that Bush didn't do everything he said he was going to. Name one president in history that ever has. Not to mention a little attack that popped up during his 4 years that needed a considerable amount of attention. Using inane like you are, just hurts your credibility.

joen00b
10th September 04, 01:28 PM
What's funny is how Phrack bags on everyone for following that edict, but it's ok for Bush. See, that's the hypocritical nature that really bothers me about most the Bush-ites. They're quick to bag on Kerry, or any Democrat, and when we show them the hypocrisy of their beliefs, they tell us to answer for it. Um, no. Bush is wrong, you're wrong to vote for him, and it's stupid to believe otherwise.

joen00b
10th September 04, 01:34 PM
Name some of the shortfalls you are big on. Me personally. I'm going to vote for the man who stood up and lead the country. You might not agree with him on everything and I don't. But he took a stance and didn't stray from it. He said this is the way we are going and he lead us. Key word there is LEAD. President = leader. Kerry couldn't lead a turd out of his ass. His entire life has been about gaining more political power, not doing anything worth a damn.

As to your comments about me blindly voting for Bush. Believe me. I have looked at Kerry's record and I'm not just voting for Bush. I'm voting against Kerry because he has voted for every tax increase, against every tax reduction. He has voted against 90% of the weapon projects that our armed forces today use. He has voted to eliminate intelligence. All he wants to do is take more of my money for useless shit that doesn't help me any. Why would I ever consider voting for this man?

In my eyes his history proves it all. You can't argue his voting record because it is a bigger loser then arguing his war record as you so elequently pointed out. Bush's record is reducing my taxes, removing a horrible threat from the world. (at a cost, whether you agreee with if it was worth it or not, I can't see how you can argue that the world is better without Saddam and his ilk) He has moved the economy back in the right direction after a pretty major historic event that helped to trash it. I'm not looking back 20 years here. I'm looking back only a few and it is easy to see that Bush is by far the better person for the job.

Another point you make is that Bush didn't do everything he said he was going to. Name one president in history that ever has. Not to mention a little attack that popped up during his 4 years that needed a considerable amount of attention. Using inane like you are, just hurts your credibility.

Kery is a proven leader in combat situations, he also has a longer political record thatn GW. GW is good to give breaks to big business where big money is involved and sends the rest into hostile zones that he didn't have the balls enough to do himself. I'd rather follow a leader htat has experience in this nture than to follow a guy that can't spit out complete sentences or even has an idea what he is talking about.

The fact Bush didn't accomplish everything isn't my issue with him. My issue is everything he said he was going to do he failed at. The economy is tanked, the 'war on terror' has nothing to do with terror, and our occupation of Iraq was something he said we weren't going to do. When he couldn't get UN backing, he balked and prevented the UN from taking a second vote, one needed to bar Military action on our part against Iraq, from happening so he could go through with the war. We've found nothing he claimed the Iraqis were hiding and holding, there is no proof they were aggressive towards America, and it's unfounded why we went there. The No Child Left Behind program has slaughtered school budgets to the tune of THOUSANDS of teachers being laid off as there is not enough money to pay them, so that means more crowded classrooms, and not nearly as many scholarships. Terrorist attacks are at an all time high world wide, just to top this shit sundae off with a cherry.

Great job, GW. It's good to see you kept your track record of complete failure intact while you were in office.

GW hasn't done everything he said he would, because he has failed on everything he has tried in office.

Phrost
10th September 04, 01:35 PM
Joe:

You're mixing up two seperate issues.

A: I think belief in religion is dumb, love to debate dumb people, but feel it's your right to be as dumb as you want... primarily because it provides me an endless source of entertainment.

B. GWB might attribute the yearnings of his conscience to "God", "Buddha", or my all-powerful "Jesus Penis", and it wouldn't matter to me because I agree with the thought behind those yearnings more than I care about who gets the credit.

Make sense?

Phrost
10th September 04, 01:41 PM
Kery is a proven leader in combat situations, he also has a longer political record thatn GW. GW is good to give breaks to big business where big money is involved and sends the rest into hostile zones that he didn't have the balls enough to do himself. I'd rather follow a leader htat has experience in this nture than to follow a guy that can't spit out complete sentences or even has an idea what he is talking about.

Kerry is about as proven of a leader as I am proven as a Porn Star. Abusing the 3 "Three Purple Hearts and You're Out" by filing claims on the awards for scratches does not constitute leadership. It constitutes ambition and a self-serving agenda.

Did you know he brought his own camera equipment to Vietnam to make sure there was footage of him 'in action' for future use?

But go ahead and gloss over this, again, and again.



The fact Bush didn't accomplish everything isn't my issue with him. My issue is everything he said he was going to do he failed at. The economy is tanked, the 'war on terror' has nothing to do with terror, and our occupation of Iraq was something he said we weren't going to do. When he couldn't get UN backing, he balked and prevented the UN from taking a second vote, one needed to bar Military action on our part against Iraq, from happening so he could go through with the war. We've found nothing he claimed the Iraqis were hiding and holding, there is no proof they were aggressive towards America, and it's unfounded why we went there. The No Child Left Behind program has slaughtered school budgets to the tune of THOUSANDS of teachers being laid off as there is not enough money to pay them, so that means more crowded classrooms, and not nearly as many scholarships. Terrorist attacks are at an all time high world wide, just to top this shit sundae off with a cherry.


Joe, I like you. But if you keep this shit up I'm going to mail you a bycicle helmet so you don't get a concussion running into walls.

Either you're being purposely obtuse, or you're just plain ignorant of the fact that Bush had NOTHING to do with the economy tanking. The Internet bubble burst right after he took office, and then a few months later we suffered the largest terrorist attack in history.

I'm giving you credit for not being an idiot, so don't make statements for which I'd have to be an idiot to think were even remotely accurate.

joen00b
10th September 04, 01:42 PM
I understand what you're saying bro, but he calls it God and is using religon as a means to get what he wants done. he makes his decisions off of religious findings, and that plum scares me!

For you to be so adamant about there not being a God, then to actually follow a man who says he is divinely inspired to do his job is fucking whack! Justify it anyway ya want, but it's not right.

Phrost
10th September 04, 01:45 PM
I can disagree with the basis of a man's beliefs, without dismissing their validity.

I know I've expressed this here at least once, but believe it or not I think religion is GOOD for society. It keeps the simple folk content to work out their 8-6 jobs as cashiers at Walmart, living for a heavenly reward instead of working for one they'll actually get, and keeps them in line so they don't rise up and take by force the wealth they couldn't earn by ability and talent.

Zeta
10th September 04, 01:51 PM
Kery is a proven leader in combat situations, he also has a longer political record thatn GW. GW is good to give breaks to big business where big money is involved and sends the rest into hostile zones that he didn't have the balls enough to do himself. I'd rather follow a leader htat has experience in this nture than to follow a guy that can't spit out complete sentences or even has an idea what he is talking about.

The fact Bush didn't accomplish everything isn't my issue with him. My issue is everything he said he was going to do he failed at. The economy is tanked, the 'war on terror' has nothing to do with terror, and our occupation of Iraq was something he said we weren't going to do. When he couldn't get UN backing, he balked and prevented the UN from taking a second vote, one needed to bar Military action on our part against Iraq, from happening so he could go through with the war. We've found nothing he claimed the Iraqis were hiding and holding, there is no proof they were aggressive towards America, and it's unfounded why we went there. The No Child Left Behind program has slaughtered school budgets to the tune of THOUSANDS of teachers being laid off as there is not enough money to pay them, so that means more crowded classrooms, and not nearly as many scholarships. Terrorist attacks are at an all time high world wide, just to top this shit sundae off with a cherry.

Great job, GW. It's good to see you kept your track record of complete failure intact while you were in office.

GW hasn't done everything he said he would, because he has failed on everything he has tried in office.
I guess the problem here Joe is we disagree or have different viewpoints on some items. One, I don't think the economy is tanked. Also, it seems that finacial facts seem to be on my side for this. House ownership is way up. Unemployment is as low as it has been in a long time. Interest rates are still very low. Jobs are coming back from a recession that he did not create. ( I think that a lot of you keep forgetting this little point, but I'll keep bringing it up )

Another disagreement is the UN support. Why is it you think Joe that we had issues getting full UN support? Is that maybe because the ONLY people who opposed it were in bed with Iraq finacially? Sheesh, that wouldn't sway anyone would it? Bush recognized it and went on with getting rid of terrorists. I think you guys keep forgetting this little point too that we have gotten rid of over 3/4 of Bin Laden's group. Not too mention Saddam may have not been the one that attacked the twin towers, but he is still a terrorist and supported terrorists, and the last time I checked it was a war on TERROR, not war on Bin Laden. I guess that Iraq would fall in there somewhere.

Kerry does have a longer political history then the President, but it has been a long political carreer in which I don't agree with just about everything he has ever done or stood up for. Basically killing any desire to ever vote for him. Where as there are quite a few things that the President has done that I am behind him all the way.

Lets talk about this military carreer of Kerry's. He was in for 4 months in which he abused a loophole to get out. Some hero. Oh, not to mention his glorious war crimes. Great carreer there!!

Please tell me what you like about Kerry that makes you want to vote for him. Him not being George Bush isn't what I'm looking for. I'm want to know what exactly Kerry has DONE, not says he is going to do, that you support and think makes him a good candidate for president.

joen00b
10th September 04, 01:52 PM
Perhaps the Economy is not his fault, but he sure as hell isn't doing much to fix it. Getting up on television saying he has a 5 part bipartisan plan to fix the economy is one thing, actually doing it is another. His so called bipartisan plans are so abhorrent, he knows no Democrat in his right mind would approve it, which gives him the easy out to say it's their fault the economy isn't recovering. He knows they won't vote for it.

Also, as for Kerry voting to keep our soldiers high and dry. I know many Republicans love to throw this fact out. I challenge you all to find the Bill he voted against and go ahead and see what the Conservatives attached to this bill, maybe then you'll understand why he voted against it. Once again, it's a Potomac 2 Step to creating a bad image. He didn't vote for a Blank Check for Rebuilding Iraq which would end up in the pockets of Halliburton Executives.

How easily it's forgotten just how rotten this war has been ran and how many folks are using political favor of the two most powerful men in the government to line their own pockets with cash. The ineptitude leading up to the war, the ineptitude of our occupation and the atrocities our troops have performed upon their people.

As for knowing how Kerry will elad this country, you don't, because he ahsn't yet. But we know how Bush is running it, and it's into the ground. His cabinet have been running this country under one leader or another for the last almost 30 years. These are the real playes in the arena. We can't keep Bush, it doesn't really matter, it's his Cabinet that needs to go: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice... the whole lot of them are the ones tanking this country and removing our civil rights. I want someone who is going to reinstate what those fascists are slowly taking away.

joen00b
10th September 04, 01:55 PM
I think you guys keep forgetting this little point too that we have gotten rid of over 3/4 of Bin Laden's group. Not too mention Saddam may have not been the one that attacked the twin towers, but he is still a terrorist and supported terrorists, and the last time I checked it was a war on TERROR, not war on Bin Laden. I guess that Iraq would fall in there somewhere.


Where's bin laden? Wh yare terrorist attacks at an all time high? Why can't we bring the terrorists down? Why can't we identify terrorist cells in our own country?

These questions and more will be answered on the next epsiode of Soap.
EDIT: The proof that Saddam supported terrorists is about as defined as Bush's attendance record in 73: It doesn't exist, but he'll tell ya what you want to hear.

Phrost
10th September 04, 02:00 PM
Also, as for Kerry voting to keep our soldiers high and dry. I know many Republicans love to throw this fact out. I challenge you all to find the Bill he voted against and go ahead and see what the Conservatives attached to this bill, maybe then you'll understand why he voted against it. Once again, it's a Potomac 2 Step to creating a bad image. He didn't vote for a Blank Check for Rebuilding Iraq which would end up in the pockets of Halliburton Executives.

And what about all the other defense systems he voted against?

Were all of them pork-barrel?



How easily it's forgotten just how rotten this war has been ran and how many folks are using political favor of the two most powerful men in the government to line their own pockets with cash. The ineptitude leading up to the war, the ineptitude of our occupation and the atrocities our troops have performed upon their people.

And someone who's consistently worked to undermine the military would be a much better choice now.

:headwall:



As for knowing how Kerry will elad this country, you don't, because he ahsn't yet. But we know how Bush is running it, and it's into the ground. His cabinet have been running this country under one leader or another for the last almost 30 years. These are the real playes in the arena. We can't keep Bush, it doesn't really matter, it's his Cabinet that needs to go: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice... the whole lot of them are the ones tanking this country and removing our civil rights. I want someone who is going to reinstate what those fascists are slowly taking away.

I can tell how he'd run the country by both his voting record, and who he associates with.

Dirty, liberal, hippie, leftards.

If that's your bag, fine. But you're wrong, and we'll all pay for it eventually if he wins.

Merauk
10th September 04, 02:17 PM
Name some of the shortfalls you are big on. Me personally. I'm going to vote for the man who stood up and lead the country. You might not agree with him on everything and I don't. But he took a stance and didn't stray from it. He said this is the way we are going and he lead us. Key word there is LEAD.

George Bush rather then finishing out the diplomatic options rushed into a war with Iraq that almost every foreign policy or terrorism expert will tell you made us less safer. Saddam kept Iraq under control and the terrorists out of it. A leader would have weighed more options it is apparent that Bush did not. I do not feel we need the approval of the French, the UN, or anyone else to do what we need to do. A good leader though would have worked harder to find an equitable solution to all parties though.


His entire life has been about gaining more political power, not doing anything worth a damn.

And what has George Bush accomplished in his life? I am not going to sink to the level of flinging insults against people as you apparently feel the need to in order to illustrate a point (I am sure Joe will be more then happy to cover George Bush’s CV).


As to your comments about me blindly voting for Bush. Believe me. I have looked at Kerry's record and I'm not just voting for Bush. I'm voting against Kerry because he has voted for every tax increase, against every tax reduction. He has voted against 90% of the weapon projects that our armed forces today use. He has voted to eliminate intelligence. All he wants to do is take more of my money for useless shit that doesn't help me any. Why would I ever consider voting for this man?

Voting records are the ultimate spin. You will find a lot of Republican’s who voted in many cases similar to Kerry (McCain being one who has actually defended Kerry’s voting record). People take pork and stick it on a bill. So what starts out as a bill for a MX missile system turns into a bill for a MX missile system and $500B in pork. The express reason why these add-ons are put onto popular legislation is to create a situation where others voting against them would be hesitant to do so in order not to appear to be against the primary purpose of the bill. I also doubt you have actually examined the voting record but are merely regurgitating the 90% figure that gets tossed around by Rush, Sean, etc.

Secondly George Bush hasn’t cut your taxes at all he has increased them. How you ask is this possible? Because instead of giving you the bill today he has put it on lay away and let it accumulate interest. George Bush is not a fiscal conservative which is why people like Buchanan are against him. At some point you are going to get the bill in the mail for these deferred expenses and it is going to be a lot more then if it had been dealt with up front. Case in point was the famous I voted for it before I voted against it $82B. Kerry wanted that money to come from a tax increase, not T-bill’s and as such voted against (though I would suspect attract Dean voters also played a role, nothing is every black and white in politics on either side of the aisle).


Bush's record is reducing my taxes, removing a horrible threat from the world. (at a cost, whether you agreee with if it was worth it or not, I can't see how you can argue that the world is better without Saddam and his ilk) He has moved the economy back in the right direction after a pretty major historic event that helped to trash it.

The world was fine with Saddam, the Iraqi’s weren’t but that is their fucking problem not mine. Nowhere during his entire reign (which he was a paid ally of the US for over half of it) did he ever present a clear and present danger to us. 9/11 had little if anything to do with the state of the economy, we were in a recession before it even happened. The actions in the Middle East have drastically increased the price of oil which is having a negative effect on the economy. The weakening of the dollar continues to impact negatively on us. As interest rates continue to rise because of the competition between government and private industry to borrow money the economy will slow more.

Another point rarely talked about is that George Bush is the only President in history to preside over an economy which net income has declined two years in a row. In fact net income in the US has only declined three times in our entire history. Once during the Eisenhower Administration and two times during the Bush Administration, that is hardly what I would call a robust economy.


Another point you make is that Bush didn't do everything he said he was going to. Name one president in history that ever has. Not to mention a little attack that popped up during his 4 years that needed a considerable amount of attention. Using inane like you are, just hurts your credibility.

I haven’t seen Bush accomplish anything he set out to do other then capture Saddam (which took him a heck of a long time to do). The Pentagon admits that terrorists are being created faster then we can defeat, something that was not the case previously. Thus actions we have taken have caused that to happen. We have not captured Osama, nor do we know where he is at. We have not established a peaceful democracy in either Iraq or Afghanistan. We have not balanced the budget. We have not tackled social security or healthcare. We have not gotten our space program back on track.

Bush was right when he said we couldn’t win the war on terrorism, it is like trying to win the war on drugs or the war on poverty. The only way you defeat these types of problems is going at the core issue. Dropping bombs isn’t going to stop it. We are not reaching out to a person like Sistani who managed to do in one day what we couldn’t do in 18 months, which is end the fighting in Najaf. Why are we not in contact with these people? Why weren’t we in contact with them prior to the invasion? Why is our main guy Chalabi discredited and suspected of spying for Iran.

The only thing Bush has accomplished is making the rest of the world really dislike us, after years of being the moral authority in the world. I don’t approve of all of Kerry’s ideas but I don’t approve of any of Bush’s.

Nuku_Unu
10th September 04, 02:22 PM
I can disagree with the basis of a man's beliefs, without dismissing their validity.

I know I've expressed this here at least once, but believe it or not I think religion is GOOD for society. It keeps the simple folk content to work out their 8-6 jobs as cashiers at Walmart, living for a heavenly reward instead of working for one they'll actually get, and keeps them in line so they don't rise up and take by force the wealth they couldn't earn by ability and talent.
This is a pretty ignorant blanket statement. Wow how stupid can you be? Ya ALL the people that believe in God are poor ignorant bastards. Its odd, I see just in my city alone many packed churches in very affluent area's with very rich parishioners. Many have guns so if they want what you have, it wouldn't take much to take it away from you. So they could certainly rise up and take by force your wealth or mine.

Merauk
10th September 04, 02:26 PM
I know I've expressed this here at least once, but believe it or not I think religion is GOOD for society. It keeps the simple folk content to work out their 8-6 jobs as cashiers at Walmart, living for a heavenly reward instead of working for one they'll actually get, and keeps them in line so they don't rise up and take by force the wealth they couldn't earn by ability and talent.

So you want a simpleton as President?

Phrost
10th September 04, 02:29 PM
This is a pretty ignorant blanket statement. Wow how stupid can you be? Ya ALL the people that believe in God are poor ignorant bastards. Its odd, I see just in my city alone many packed churches in very affluent area's with very rich parishioners. Many have guns so if they want what you have, it wouldn't take much to take it away from you. So they could certainly rise up and take by force your wealth or mine.

Well that's certainly proof that smrt people believe in God, yessir!

Couldn't be that churches are great means of social networking within local communities, or that it's much easier to get things done when you're a recognized member of the majority, now could it?

How many inmates in prison are religious, vs. atheist?

Phrost
10th September 04, 02:32 PM
So you want a simpleton as President?

When given the choice between a simpleton and someone who's diametrically opposite of my views, I don't care if he's Barney Fife as long as he manages to consistently make choices with which I agree.

Nuku_Unu
10th September 04, 02:37 PM
Well that's certainly proof that smrt people believe in God, yessir!

Couldn't be that churches are great means of social networking within local communities, or that it's much easier to get things done when you're a recognized member of the majority, now could it?

How many inmates in prison are religious, vs. atheist?

Right thats why rich well educated people believe in God and go to church because they want to network?! I almost fell off my chair laughing

Mesmer
10th September 04, 02:38 PM
Well clearly if you think attacking Iraq was the right decision, even though we had not yet brought to justice the very person who caused all this talk about the "war on terror," than there just isnt much I can say to change your mind. Bush let Osama walk and instead focused his attention on Iraq, which was not a significant terrorist threat.

I think that history will treat Iraq as one of America's biggest foreign policy blunders ever, much like Vietnam is considered today. Given that Iraq is on the verge of devolving into chaos, or worse being controlled by a fundamentalist islamic goverment, it is very difficult to see how anyone can think spending hundreds of billions of dollars and losing over a thousand soldiers is justified in this war, especially when the very reason for going to war has changed numerous times since we invaded Iraq. First it was WMD's, then liberation, then spreading democracy.

The entire world is against us now, and if were really serious about taking part in the "global economy," as free traders say we should, than we are only endangering our position in that economy if 4 our of 5 developed countries are saying America should not re-elect Bush, and we do so anyways.

I know, I know...why should America listen to a bunch of wine sipping commies from france, germany, UK, ect..? Its that attitude that America can do whatever it likes which will lead to severe economic distress, especially now that we have leveraged our economic future on the concept of globalization.

As for tax cuts and claims that "Kerry is gonna take my money." Well tough shit. You cannot continue to cut taxes when we have a 440 billion dollar deficit this year. Kerry might be "Tax and Spend" but Bush is "Cut and Spend," which is far worse because eventually you have to pay the piper. Imagine if you ran your own personal finances the way Bush runs our deficit. The banks and repo men would take your shirt if you decided to keep charging up debt instead of paying what you currently owe.

But go ahead and pretend that day of reckoning will never come to pass. I know that Bush's team are very adept at using completely truthful statements to create a false conclusion - politicians have been using that technique for thousands of years. Just believe whatever they say. Bush will keep us safe from everything, including the truth.

Shorrtee McHeals
10th September 04, 02:51 PM
I didn't go to an Ivy League school, I didn't need my daddy to buy my degree for me.


Thats such bullshit.

Proof? Something other than your own stupid ideas?

Thespis
10th September 04, 02:53 PM
I can disagree with the basis of a man's beliefs, without dismissing their validity.

I know I've expressed this here at least once, but believe it or not I think religion is GOOD for society. It keeps the simple folk content to work out their 8-6 jobs as cashiers at Walmart, living for a heavenly reward instead of working for one they'll actually get, and keeps them in line so they don't rise up and take by force the wealth they couldn't earn by ability and talent.


LoL, there are many many many successful businessmen, national leaders, and extraordinarily wealthy people many of whom are quite intelligent and adhere to various religious views. To believe otherwise is not only ridiculous but extremely ignorant and stupid. Despite disagreeing with you on religious views, I've always thought at least that you were not an idiot. This makes me wonder...

joen00b
10th September 04, 02:57 PM
Thats such bullshit.

Proof? Something other than your own stupid ideas?

Just look at his transcripts, he was a solid C and D student. Even in your most suicidal moments you were a better student than our president.

joen00b
10th September 04, 03:02 PM
Campaign poster if Bush were running against Jesus in our election. This is a spoof on the kind of campaign GW is running.

Phrost
10th September 04, 03:11 PM
LoL, there are many many many successful businessmen, national leaders, and extraordinarily wealthy people many of whom are quite intelligent and adhere to various religious views. To believe otherwise is not only ridiculous but extremely ignorant and stupid. Despite disagreeing with you on religious views, I've always thought at least that you were not an idiot. This makes me wonder...

You need to sit back at the kid's table and leave the discussion to the grownups, kid

No shit, if 70% of any population believes in something there's going to be some smart, successful people within that group.

But that doesn't mean there aren't people who are both smarter and more successful.

Grow up.

Thespis
10th September 04, 03:22 PM
joe, heh, I went to a liberal college and graduated with a 3.45. Made the dean's list. Member of Phi Alpha Theta, international history honor society. Academics does not qualify or disqualify someone to lead. Some of the greatest leaders in history were fairly uneducated.

Bush has definitely not had all his programs fail. That of course probably depends on your perspective. Going through college and getting my teaching degree, I heard many teachers both liberal and conservative bitch about Bush's "No Child Left Behind" stuff. What they bitched about was the added work, and at the same time almost all of them admitted it was needed and that it was making a positive difference.

The unemployment level is almost the exact same at 5.5% as it was when Clinton got re-elected for his 2nd term. Home ownership is the highest it has ever been. Interest rates are STILL for years very low. Bush's tax cuts and pushes for low interest rates have been efforts to help people after the effects of 9-11.

Speaking of 9-11, such an incident tends to put a dent in a leader's plan for the country and sets it back a bit. He put those things on hold to deal with the more important issues that rose up. What you think of how he chose to deal with those issues may vary, but at least he took a stand and showed commitment to dealing with it.

There will always be terrorism. That doesn't mean we should stick our heads in the sand and try to simply build our walls higher, protecting our own. We have to aggressively demonstrate a willingness to respond with force when necessary because apparently that is the only thing many of them understand. America (both Republican and Democrat) tried addressing middle eastern terrorism with diplomacy for years and it didn't get us very far.

Some people seem to think that nailing Osama is such a huge factor in the war on terror. Sure it is important and would be nice for the justice and revenge factor. However, removing him, should that happen, will not keep another "head" from popping up in his place. It is a constant stance of vigilance that is required, just like crime never goes away no matter how many resources of police, FBI, etc are devoted to its suppression.

Kerry didn't just duck one or two tax cut or military support bills that could be excused with whatever was attached to the bill. He voted against EVERY single one of them regardless of whatever was or wasn't attached to them. That in conjunction with how he handled himself AFTER his military service demonstrates all the reason I need to not vote for him. I personally don't question his service while in the military, although there is enough to suggest it is questionable. Regardless, it is in the past. How he handled himself after his military service wasn't just 30 years ago though, it has been a consistent and continued pattern of stupidity and lack of support for our country in general. The impression he gives to many is a man simply grubbing for power who will do whatever he thinks he needs to in order to achieve his power goals.

Phrost
10th September 04, 03:48 PM
Get my point now?

I think Thespis is a blind sheep who refuses to question his beliefs with sincere critical thought, but I have no problem stating that he's right, because in this case, he is.

And in other "news":

http://www.ratherbiased.com/images/clippy.png

joen00b
10th September 04, 04:01 PM
joe, heh, I went to a liberal college and graduated with a 3.45. Made the dean's list. Member of Phi Alpha Theta, international history honor society. Academics does not qualify or disqualify someone to lead. Some of the greatest leaders in history were fairly uneducated.

You're better qualified than Georgie. Do you even know what his degree was in?



Bush has definitely not had all his programs fail. That of course probably depends on your perspective. Going through college and getting my teaching degree, I heard many teachers both liberal and conservative bitch about Bush's "No Child Left Behind" stuff. What they bitched about was the added work, and at the same time almost all of them admitted it was needed and that it was making a positive difference.

That's neither here nor there, the fact it is failing is what is relevant.



The unemployment level is almost the exact same at 5.5% as it was when Clinton got re-elected for his 2nd term.

Well, bro, let's take a look at the numbers since ya want to quote them:

Series Id: LNS14000000Seasonal AdjustedSeries title: (Seas) Unemployment RateLabor force status: Unemployment rateType of data: PercentAge: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1992 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.4
1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.7
2002 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.7
2004 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4


As you can see by the above chart (sorry, the messageboard is going to mess it up and smoosh the columns) Clinton inherited a 7.3% Unemployment rate. Going into his second term, he had reduced that by 1/3. Going out of office, he had reduced that to near half: 3.9%. Under Bush's regime, we've seen this number climb and perhaps hold steady, but here is the trick to these numbers: They're doctored.

Under Clinton, Unemployment could be collected for 1 year, at a sliding scale. Under Bush: 6 months and a capped amount. The magical number of 5.5% is inaccurate as it's derived by the amount of people collecting Unemployment pay per capita. Since they are capped to the amount and are left ot their own accords after 6 months, they have no income but still have no job. The numbers won't show this because of the way they're figured. Try figuring out the percentage of Americans out of work, not 'Unemployed'.



There will always be terrorism. That doesn't mean we should stick our heads in the sand and try to simply build our walls higher, protecting our own. We have to aggressively demonstrate a willingness to respond with force when necessary because apparently that is the only thing many of them understand. America (both Republican and Democrat) tried addressing middle eastern terrorism with diplomacy for years and it didn't get us very far.


This is a very accurate statement, there always will be terror and terrorists, but don't you think we would want to stem the flow of terrorist organizations instead of feeding them? Terrorist Groups are getting new recruits hourly, it's a veritable bonanza of young men and women willing to kill themselves to get rid of the infidels: Us. Why? Becuae of us! We are creating our own enemy! It's giving the Bush Administration a hard on knowing that anything we do will continue this War On Terror, and you're fucking soft in the melon if you think they DON'T want this war.



Some people seem to think that nailing Osama is such a huge factor in the war on terror. Sure it is important and would be nice for the justice and revenge factor. However, removing him, should that happen, will not keep another "head" from popping up in his place. It is a constant stance of vigilance that is required, just like crime never goes away no matter how many resources of police, FBI, etc are devoted to its suppression.


Everyone accept Bush thinks it's a good idea. Let me explain how these things work for a minute: Reagan was a great leader because he had an evil to align himself against. He didn't create it, he inherited it, and he took care of it. He was strong against it and took no shit from anyone. Unfortunately the Communist Regime fell, kaput, gone. What do we do? Well, we go back to the old standbys: Iran, we were always against them, they held a bunch of our people as hostages. Just Reagan taking office got them released, that's how scared the Ayatollah was of Reagan. But those days were gone. Bush Sr. tried Iran, but they weren't biting, Grenada was over in 15 minutes, we really didn't have anyone, so we go after Saddam. He invaded Kuwait, and Kuwait was OUR bitch! How dare he try to squeeze our jugs?

We rush out there, kick him out, then follow him home. Everyone knew it was a bit much, so the public outcry was to pull back and come home. So we did. Now, realize this, we were already knocking on the front door of Bahgdad last time and they didn't use any WMD's against us. To stay political, and keep the public image up, many Democrats simply agreed with their Conservative Counterparts and said: Yeah, sure, he has WMD's... hey, is that coffee cake? If he really posed a threat, we would have taken him out under Clinton. We launched a few missles here or there, and that's really all the trouble he was worth! But, because of Bush Sr, he was our sworn enemy, the evil to our good, the oppression to our freedom. For some reasons, the Conservative mindset DEMANDS an enemy to align against. it's really fucking creepy to be honest! And they're always enemies we can push around: Qadafi and his ilk, Africa, Phillipines, Grenada. Not one of these countries stood a chance against us, but they were the Pokemon enemy of the year for the Bush Sr. That's just the way it works.

Osama SHOULD have been baby Bush's enemy, but he wanted to one up his father and take down Saddam. It worked well for his cabinet because they have been trying to get their hands on Iraqi oil for 25 years. Add in the whole christian rapture angle and the fact it's in the Mesopotamia, a highly religious region for Christians and muslims alike, and we have the makings for a war to masturbate in Conservative glee against. If Osama isn't 'caught' in October for a quick boost to the Bush Campaign, then he'll be caught when the polls turn negative. The Terrorist Mood Ring has been working well for the lat 2 years to keep people in line using fear and paranoia, but people really aren't paying that much attention to them. With Ridge giving his 'Cry Wolf' speeches about "terrorists planning to attack in or outside the United States in the near or distant future, we're really not sure, because the intelligence is sketchy" bullshit every time Kerry takes a lead in the polls, and we have a full blown dictatorship. This is serious bullshit. Mindless masses follow him saying: we can prevent this from happening again. the key word here is again. Bush failed while he was on watch, and he is to blame.



Kerry didn't just duck one or two tax cut or military support bills that could be excused with whatever was attached to the bill. He voted against EVERY single one of them regardless of whatever was or wasn't attached to them. That in conjunction with how he handled himself AFTER his military service demonstrates all the reason I need to not vote for him. I personally don't question his service while in the military, although there is enough to suggest it is questionable. Regardless, it is in the past. How he handled himself after his military service wasn't just 30 years ago though, it has been a consistent and continued pattern of stupidity and lack of support for our country in general. The impression he gives to many is a man simply grubbing for power who will do whatever he thinks he needs to in order to achieve his power goals.


Let's really take a look at his voting record, shall we? I'll even be nice: Here (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm) is a link to get you started. Go ahead and study and come back and try that line again.

joen00b
10th September 04, 04:09 PM
Oh, one last note: Most colleges are liberals, in fact there was a great outcry from the Conservatives that mos the professors in Colleges are Liberals and are teaching 'liberal thought processes' to the malleable student minds. Because of this, they created and passed a bill to help more Conservatives get jobs in Colleges, but many aren't biting because they make much more money elsewhere and that's all they care about: Money. It's become such a problem that many liberal professors are receiving death threats from the conservative students that don't like what the professors have to say about certain subjects.

Thespis
10th September 04, 07:02 PM
LoL joe, the point is, many people are happy with what Bush has accomplished considering what he had to work with. It takes a lot more than academics to be a good leader. As I said, some of the best leaders of all time were very uneducated. People very often do not make decisions based on all the considered angles. They have a core of beliefs that come from their personal experience and other people respond for good or ill to those who passionately act on their beliefs. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it isn't. The problem many people see with Kerry is that he has no real belief or conviction.

As for the unemployment stuff, yeah it went up in 2002 and 2003, and so far has went down in 2004. You'll notice it started going up in % in 2001 around the time of 9-11. I imagine the impact of 9-11 was a large factor. As for Kerry's voting record, I don't know that I'd put much stock in many if any online resources. However, regardless of their accuracy or inaccuracy, I was only conveying what the media has been reporting.

The problem with how many liberals see the issues versus conservatives stems from a difference in what each hold morally valuable. We can agree to disagree. Because as long as the things important to me are not important to you, and as long as the things important to you are not important to me, we'll never agree on the better choice for president.

On the college issue, I'm not sure that I follow how that ties in with the political issues. I am sure I could be missing your point. I was only saying I went to a liberal college and did well there. I think I received a good education. There were both liberal and conservative professors in the classes I had. I never had any complaints about what I was being taught. If there was something I didn't agree with, I exercised that critical thinking that Phrack is so fond of. Regardless, what educators find valuable in teaching all comes down to that basis of their morality which many will agree to disagree on.

Thespis
10th September 04, 07:06 PM
Get my point now?

I think Thespis is a blind sheep who refuses to question his beliefs with sincere critical thought, but I have no problem stating that he's right, because in this case, he is.

And in other "news":

http://www.ratherbiased.com/images/clippy.png


The fact that I accept what I accept does not mean I'm a blind sheep who refuses to question my beliefs. That you even think your conclusion follows based on your "evidence" is fairly ignorant. You don't know what I've questioned or looked into or what kind of thought I've put into the issues. I've spent years in both liberal and conservative schools finding out for myself what I believe and why I believe it rather than just swallow what's handed to me. The choices I've made to believe what I believe were based on personal experience, which is the ultimate filter we all employ when deciding what we believe about the world around us. You've yet to respond with any real evidence of intelligent thought and would rather sling insults. Granted, that's my opinion based on my views and the evidence I see versus your view and the evidence you see. We all look at the issues through the rose colored lenses of our personal experience perspectives.

Charoth
10th September 04, 09:24 PM
Let's really take a look at his voting record, shall we? I'll even be nice: Here (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm) is a link to get you started. Go ahead and study and come back and try that line again.

Hmm, well, for the first 20 votes this year I looked at, he didn't vote at all. Too busy working for his election to bother to represent the state paying his salary, or too afraid to take a position because someone might not like it?

Phrost
11th September 04, 08:52 AM
The fact that I accept what I accept does not mean I'm a blind sheep who refuses to question my beliefs. That you even think your conclusion follows based on your "evidence" is fairly ignorant. You don't know what I've questioned or looked into or what kind of thought I've put into the issues. I've spent years in both liberal and conservative schools finding out for myself what I believe and why I believe it rather than just swallow what's handed to me. The choices I've made to believe what I believe were based on personal experience, which is the ultimate filter we all employ when deciding what we believe about the world around us. You've yet to respond with any real evidence of intelligent thought and would rather sling insults. Granted, that's my opinion based on my views and the evidence I see versus your view and the evidence you see. We all look at the issues through the rose colored lenses of our personal experience perspectives.

Belief is the problem. You chose easy, pre-packaged answers over critical thinking. Critical thinking that can't help but lead someone, if sincere, to the conclusion that belief is the crutch of the mentally lazy and weak; it serves up a cold glass of illusion to those unwilling to get off their asses and walk to the 'fridge' of reality.

It's absolutely your right to believe in the supernatural, just as it is my right to say that you're a gullible idiot, no better than someone who believes in faeries, the Earth being hollow, or resting on the backs of turtles.

Chantress
11th September 04, 11:38 AM
Belief is the problem. You chose easy, pre-packaged answers over critical thinking. Critical thinking that can't help but lead someone, if sincere, to the conclusion that belief is the crutch of the mentally lazy and weak; it serves up a cold glass of illusion to those unwilling to get off their asses and walk to the 'fridge' of reality.

It's absolutely your right to believe in the supernatural, just as it is my right to say that you're a gullible idiot, no better than someone who believes in faeries, the Earth being hollow, or resting on the backs of turtles.


Why is that? Because you say so? I submit to you that some of the greatest thinkers, and most well respected people and philosphers were religous men. Your logic doesnt hold true. Sorry, but what you state here does not pass the smell test.

joen00b
11th September 04, 12:00 PM
Hmm, well, for the first 20 votes this year I looked at, he didn't vote at all. Too busy working for his election to bother to represent the state paying his salary, or too afraid to take a position because someone might not like it?

Wow, you came to that conclusion all your own, or did you cheat and use the Bush Backers Pop Up Book For Idiots?

joen00b
11th September 04, 12:07 PM
LoL joe, the point is, many people are happy with what Bush has accomplished considering what he had to work with. It takes a lot more than academics to be a good leader. As I said, some of the best leaders of all time were very uneducated. People very often do not make decisions based on all the considered angles. They have a core of beliefs that come from their personal experience and other people respond for good or ill to those who passionately act on their beliefs. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it isn't. The problem many people see with Kerry is that he has no real belief or conviction.

How can you honestly be impressed with a man with a complete record of failure, in and out of office where he panders to the ultra rich and corporations and covers their asses and makes amends for them to bend and/or break the law? That's not a leader.

To be technical, both Cheney and Bush have 'flip flopped' more than Kerry in these last few weeks, but I don't see ya'll complaining about that. The supposed Liberal Media does a GREAT job covering up the Presidents orating faux pas's, for damned sure. It does take more than academics to be a leader, it takes intelligence and that is something the president is sorely lacking in. He has others make his decisions for him and he comes out and repeats them.



As for the unemployment stuff, yeah it went up in 2002 and 2003, and so far has went down in 2004. You'll notice it started going up in % in 2001 around the time of 9-11. I imagine the impact of 9-11 was a large factor. As for Kerry's voting record, I don't know that I'd put much stock in many if any online resources. However, regardless of their accuracy or inaccuracy, I was only conveying what the media has been reporting.


Once again, 'Unemployment' is dropping, but people out of work is rising. That's the point here.



The problem with how many liberals see the issues versus conservatives stems from a difference in what each hold morally valuable. We can agree to disagree. Because as long as the things important to me are not important to you, and as long as the things important to you are not important to me, we'll never agree on the better choice for president.


Anyone have a link to the Video: Keep Your Jesus Off My Penis? I appreciate his religious conviction, but don't make laws to back up the Bible and don't back up laws with the Bible, it's against the law, mmmkay?

I don't need some fool like Bush preaching to me morality, he's sorely lacking in it, and those who believe he is moral are suckers and fools themselves.

I will say this, Bush finally succeeded in a business. The corporations he has in his hip pocket are making TONS of money and I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of kick back to Bush after he gets voted out of office.

Charoth
12th September 04, 05:47 PM
Wow, you came to that conclusion all your own, or did you cheat and use the Bush Backers Pop Up Book For Idiots?

It was your link Sparky. Don't go daring people to check Kerry's voting record if you aren't prepared to defend it. The fact you can't deny is that the guy is a sitting Senator too busy applying for another job to bother to show up.

Now, I don't know about your boss, but if I skip out on work for a year, I don't get paid. In fact, I imagine the people I am supposed to be working for are pretty pissed. How can anyone expect us to believe he wants to work for the people when he isn't working for the people he's supposed to be representing right now?

Pretty priceless the other day to hear him bitching about the "assault" weapon ban expiring... I don't see his Senator ass doing in Washington doing anything about it. He cares more about the political mileage of letting Bush let it expire than he does about the actual law, despite his promises to liberals back in the primaries to work to insure its extended.

The truth about Kerry, honestly, is anything anyone choses to say about him. Because at some point in his carreer he has taken every possible position on just about every issue, depending on what he perceives will get him farthest that day.

Mesmer
12th September 04, 06:21 PM
The truth about Kerry, honestly, is anything anyone choses to say about him. Because at some point in his carreer he has taken every possible position on just about every issue, depending on what he perceives will get him farthest that day.

Yes, Kerry is the only politician in the history of time who changes his positions as the needs and wants of his constituents change. How dare a politician ever change his mind in order to win votes!

Its amusing that people criticize Kerry for changing his position, even though he does so in the face of new evidence indicating the status quo is not working. I thought that the whole point of our Democracy was for politicians to represent the electorate's needs, not shape them. Since when did it become a prerequisite for a candidate to exercise absolute decisiveness without acknowledging that our world involves constant change?

beck
12th September 04, 06:26 PM
At least Kerry has a voting record to criticize.

imported_Blazer
12th September 04, 08:41 PM
i thought this thread was about a new contraseptive called BUSH GUARD

Thespis
12th September 04, 09:56 PM
Belief is the problem. You chose easy, pre-packaged answers over critical thinking. Critical thinking that can't help but lead someone, if sincere, to the conclusion that belief is the crutch of the mentally lazy and weak; it serves up a cold glass of illusion to those unwilling to get off their asses and walk to the 'fridge' of reality.

It's absolutely your right to believe in the supernatural, just as it is my right to say that you're a gullible idiot, no better than someone who believes in faeries, the Earth being hollow, or resting on the backs of turtles.

WTH! Faeries aren't real??? But, but they're in EQ! I have a summer home in the middle of the Earth. I cruise there each June on the back of my pet turtle.

Thespis
12th September 04, 10:02 PM
joe, when it comes right down to it, I don't like politicians, period. Yes I agree Bush has faults. I think he is wrong in his handling of some laws and the basis behind it. I'm just saying that the basis of the various stances on the issues depends a lot on people's moral inclinations. I wouldn't even be surprised if Bush was pleased with the price of oil being so high so that his oil field connections make more money off the current situations. There are even some things I like about Kerry, but when I weigh it all out, I'd rather see Bush in office over Kerry.

If I had my way, Phrack would be president. /chuckle

Merauk
12th September 04, 10:45 PM
At least Kerry has a voting record to criticize.

Jesus loves him less though.

Shorrtee McHeals
13th September 04, 08:20 AM
Under Clinton, Unemployment could be collected for 1 year, at a sliding scale. Under Bush: 6 months and a capped amount. The magical number of 5.5% is inaccurate as it's derived by the amount of people collecting Unemployment pay per capita. Since they are capped to the amount and are left ot their own accords after 6 months, they have no income but still have no job. The numbers won't show this because of the way they're figured. Try figuring out the percentage of Americans out of work, not 'Unemployed'.


Thats not even how they determine the UE rate.

joen00b
13th September 04, 09:34 AM
Thats not even how they determine the UE rate.

Shut up, wetback, you ain't part of the USA anymore, so you don't get a say in these things anymore.

joen00b
13th September 04, 09:38 AM
It was your link Sparky. Don't go daring people to check Kerry's voting record if you aren't prepared to defend it. The fact you can't deny is that the guy is a sitting Senator too busy applying for another job to bother to show up.

Now, I don't know about your boss, but if I skip out on work for a year, I don't get paid. In fact, I imagine the people I am supposed to be working for are pretty pissed. How can anyone expect us to believe he wants to work for the people when he isn't working for the people he's supposed to be representing right now?

Pretty priceless the other day to hear him bitching about the "assault" weapon ban expiring... I don't see his Senator ass doing in Washington doing anything about it. He cares more about the political mileage of letting Bush let it expire than he does about the actual law, despite his promises to liberals back in the primaries to work to insure its extended.

The truth about Kerry, honestly, is anything anyone choses to say about him. Because at some point in his carreer he has taken every possible position on just about every issue, depending on what he perceives will get him farthest that day.

So, the original post about his flip-flopping on voting, or voting to keep our soldiers out of needed gear is bullshit, as he hasn't been voting one way or the other. Thanks for walking right into that and proving my point for me.

Chantress
13th September 04, 10:14 AM
Yes, Kerry is the only politician in the history of time who changes his positions as the needs and wants of his constituents change. How dare a politician ever change his mind in order to win votes!

Its amusing that people criticize Kerry for changing his position, even though he does so in the face of new evidence indicating the status quo is not working. I thought that the whole point of our Democracy was for politicians to represent the electorate's needs, not shape them. Since when did it become a prerequisite for a candidate to exercise absolute decisiveness without acknowledging that our world involves constant change?

Best attempt at humor I have seen in a long time. Good thing you are a lawyer and not a comedian. Your kids would starve. Ohh, wait, you really believe that.

Sithray
13th September 04, 10:20 AM
www.stolenhonor.com

Well that site is full of shit:

"That this same lieutenant would later join forces with Jane Fonda to form an anti-war group of so-called Vietnam veterans"

That line kills any legitimacy it may have ever had. John Kerry and Jane Fonda both already made statements that they were never affiliated with each other in ANY way, and only happened to attend ONE anti war rally, NOT TOGETHER, just the same one at the same time.

beck
13th September 04, 11:06 AM
http://www.thewvsr.com/bushmemo.htm

Thespis
13th September 04, 02:00 PM
joe, by your logic, somebody "could" claim that a higher % of unemployment means that more of those who are out of work are actually getting some cash through unemployment collection. That would mean the unemployment #'s EVERYONE is so fond of quoting don't mean a whole lot.

I do agree there are Americans out of work who are not collecting unemployment. I imagine though this # is a lot harder to accurately determine, which is why they typically use the unemployment #'s which are easy to calculate. End result, the unemployment #'s only show the ups and downs of those people out of work who are actually getting assistance from the government without really knowing exactly how many are out of work.

By the above token, a person "could" say that the lower percentages during some of Clinton's years were a bad thing, depending how many people were actually out of work. There are lots of people who "earn a living" outside of the government's recordable means. I'm not saying employment was or wasn't better in Clinton or Bush's years. The point is, we don't know for sure. All I was saying is that by the #'s people tend to harp on, there isn't a significant difference between the two. Politicians on both sides though like to twist the #'s to whatever perspective favors them. Don't fall into their trap.

joen00b
13th September 04, 02:12 PM
Well, like I had said: During the Clinton Administration, Unemployment Insurance (commonly referred to as simply Unemployment) lasted upwards of 12 to 18 months and was on a slide rule per income prior to losing your job. Under Bush, it is limited to 6 months and capped at a specific amount, which is about $213 per week. Very little to survive on.

That's the difference you keep forgetting.

Thespis
13th September 04, 02:25 PM
I like the limits. It helps keep taxes down a bit more, and it gives incentive to those who might wish to milk unemployment to get out and get a job. However, as with any system, there are pros and cons to both methods.

imported_Blazer
13th September 04, 02:28 PM
i wish that all democrats/liberials would get posioned in a mass conspiracy to end the retartedness of this nation, them and evagalists/baptists/super conservatives.

beck
13th September 04, 03:31 PM
i wish that all democrats/liberials would get posioned in a mass conspiracy to end the retartedness of this nation, them and evagalists/baptists/super conservatives.

I'm working with you here sparky help me, who would be left?

Phrost
13th September 04, 03:34 PM
Doesn't matter who's left; neither are right.

imported_Blazer
13th September 04, 05:12 PM
Doesn't matter who's left; neither are right.

my point.

joen00b
13th September 04, 05:14 PM
my point.

is on the top of your head?

imported_Blazer
13th September 04, 07:42 PM
is on the top of your head?


conehead desease.