It's not that I want this to happen. It's just that I know how things go under someone like Bush. It will get a little better then we'll slide right back ( after the election ).
That is just meaningless garbage. It's been more than a year since I asked you which economic polices in particular has Bush implemented that you see as the problem. Moreover, what did Clinton do in particular that aided the economy? You may think I'm being a smart-ass but I'm seriosuly asking.
Quote:
Tell me SDW. Have we found any solid evidence that Saddam had WOMD and a way to deploy them so as to be considered an imminent threat to the US shortly before the war?
Yes. You should research Mr. Kay's report. We've found missles capable of travelling 1,000 miles....the limit was 93 if I recall. Mr. Kay says that while we haven't found actual chemicals, Saddam's intent to violate UN resolutions delibrately and continue to develop said weapons was clear. the media has conveniently ignored this...and so have you.
Quote:
On the one hand he's a snake in the grass liar. Out to feather his own nest and to hell with the american people.
On the other hand he's incompetent and not worthy of being president.
Take your pick.
Ah. Jimmac's classic False Dilemma debate tactic. I've seen nothing telling me Bush is incomeptent. The economy is improving after two tax cuts pushed by...ahem...Bush. He's been brilliant in the aftermath of 9/11 and I agree with his approach completely. The United States should not bow at the alter of the UN every time it needs to take action. He has chosen to fight the war on terror overseas rather than here. Incompetent? As far as lying, I've seen no evidence of that either. Your entire argument is that we haven't found the actual chemicals. This, despite finding just about every other thing in the world over there.
Quote:
I don't know why I waste my time with you. You don't get your facts straight and they are always slanted by your viewpoint. And yes I will bring up at election time your " I told you so ". Some how I think you'll be absent from this forum for awhile after the election however.
I don't get MY facts straight? What facts have you presented? You've presented NONE. You rely on pure rhetoric. You have given no reasons for your viewpoints AT ALL. You think Bush will lose and have again provided NO rational for your prediction. I presented a list of 13 factors in the election...what have you done? What has any liberal here done, other than scream "Out the Door in 2004"?
I also find it entertaining that what I say is dismissed as blindly partisan and non-thinking, while you can make all the unsubstantiated claims and predictions you like. Yes, I support Bush. That doesn't mean I'm blind to reality. The reality is that the Democratic field is weak. The reality is that the Demcoratic party is fundamentally screwed right now. The reality is that the Democrats have no meaningful majority anywhere. They don't have the Presidency. They don't have Congress. They don't command a majority of Governorships. They don't even command a majority of state bicameral legislatures. They lost a historic recall in a hugely Democratic state. 61% of the state voted REPUBLICAN. They are in total disaray without a strong leader.
Bush is incumbent, extraordinarily well funded, and much smarter politically than you give him credit for. He will be seen as the strong 9/11 leader and the commander-in-chief through two wars. The Republican party is well-organized and he's running unapposed. The Democrats are going to beat the hell out of each other and spend a ton in the process. Dean and Clark...and perhaps Kerry are going to look like Rocky Balboa fighting Mr. T at the end of the primaries. Bush, by contrast, will have $170m of unspent money...ready to be focused on one man. The economy will be growing at 5% (projected). The Republicans control Florida and Texas...and according to what I hear, the previously written off state of CA is now on their radar and "in play". Oh, and I forgot: There's no Ross Perot to take 19% of the vote...most of it from swing voters.
Again. Tell me how he's going to lose. All partisanship and personal feelings aside, jimmac. Explain it to me.
Ah. Jimmac's classic False Dilemma debate tactic. I've seen nothing telling me Bush is incomeptent. The economy is improving after two tax cuts pushed by...ahem...Bush. He's been brilliant in the aftermath of 9/11 and I agree with his approach completely. The United States should not bow at the alter of the UN every time it needs to take action. He has chosen to fight the war on terror overseas rather than here. Incompetent? As far as lying, I've seen no evidence of that either. Your entire argument is that we haven't found the actual chemicals. This, despite finding just about every other thing in the world over there.
Economy: Bush will be the first president since the Great Depression to show a net loss of jobs. That won't change in the next year, even if the economy does pick up. Despite inheriting a surplus from Clinton, Bush now has the largest deficit in history. Growth may even be at 5%, but by the time the election rolls around in a year, Americans will know exactly what the deficit is in billions and exactly how many jobs have been lost in millions, if Democratic campaign managers do their jobs.
Iraq: Half of the country disapproves of the way Bush handled Iraq, believes the war makes us less safe rather than more safe, and believes Bush misled the country about WMDs. Most importantly, things are not going to get much better there, from the POV of the American public. Troops won't be home yet, they'll probably continue to be regularly killed, and the Shiites will probably still be protesting us somewhere or other in the country. And Bush's staged and tax-payer costly aircraft carrier landing will look pretty pathetic in comparison to either Clark's or Kerry's purple hearts, silver stars, etc. etc. that they earned in combat.
I also think if Democrats are smart, they'll go right for Bush's base, and compare Bush's 20+% increase in non-military discretionary domestic spending to Clinton's net spending decrease in their first terms. Clinton declared the era of big government over, and Bush and Congressional Republicans declared it started again. That could depress conservative turnout for Bush, if played correctly and if the Democratic nominee doesn't have huge new spending plans like Gephardt and Dean.
Republicans have always had more money than Democrats, so Bush's advantage there isn't new or anything for Dems to worry about.
The electoral map is just about dead-even, as it was last time around. A few swing states will determine the election, and because most of Bush's 3 million lost jobs have been manufacturing jobs, a large number of which are in a few of those important swing states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, he may have more trouble there than he did last time around.
[edit]
PS, since 1960, only two presidents have served two full terms, if I'm counting right. Post-Watergate, two presidents were re-elected (Reagan and Clinton) and two were un-elected (Carter and Bush). So the power of the incumbency is not as strong as one might think.
That is just meaningless garbage. It's been more than a year since I asked you which economic polices in particular has Bush implemented that you see as the problem. Moreover, what did Clinton do in particular that aided the economy? You may think I'm being a smart-ass but I'm seriosuly asking.
Yes. You should research Mr. Kay's report. We've found missles capable of travelling 1,000 miles....the limit was 93 if I recall. Mr. Kay says that while we haven't found actual chemicals, Saddam's intent to violate UN resolutions delibrately and continue to develop said weapons was clear. the media has conveniently ignored this...and so have you.
Ah. Jimmac's classic False Dilemma debate tactic. I've seen nothing telling me Bush is incomeptent. The economy is improving after two tax cuts pushed by...ahem...Bush. He's been brilliant in the aftermath of 9/11 and I agree with his approach completely. The United States should not bow at the alter of the UN every time it needs to take action. He has chosen to fight the war on terror overseas rather than here. Incompetent? As far as lying, I've seen no evidence of that either. Your entire argument is that we haven't found the actual chemicals. This, despite finding just about every other thing in the world over there.
I don't get MY facts straight? What facts have you presented? You've presented NONE. You rely on pure rhetoric. You have given no reasons for your viewpoints AT ALL. You think Bush will lose and have again provided NO rational for your prediction. I presented a list of 13 factors in the election...what have you done? What has any liberal here done, other than scream "Out the Door in 2004"?
I also find it entertaining that what I say is dismissed as blindly partisan and non-thinking, while you can make all the unsubstantiated claims and predictions you like. Yes, I support Bush. That doesn't mean I'm blind to reality. The reality is that the Democratic field is weak. The reality is that the Demcoratic party is fundamentally screwed right now. The reality is that the Democrats have no meaningful majority anywhere. They don't have the Presidency. They don't have Congress. They don't command a majority of Governorships. They don't even command a majority of state bicameral legislatures. They lost a historic recall in a hugely Democratic state. 61% of the state voted REPUBLICAN. They are in total disaray without a strong leader.
Bush is incumbent, extraordinarily well funded, and much smarter politically than you give him credit for. He will be seen as the strong 9/11 leader and the commander-in-chief through two wars. The Republican party is well-organized and he's running unapposed. The Democrats are going to beat the hell out of each other and spend a ton in the process. Dean and Clark...and perhaps Kerry are going to look like Rocky Balboa fighting Mr. T at the end of the primaries. Bush, by contrast, will have $170m of unspent money...ready to be focused on one man. The economy will be growing at 5% (projected). The Republicans control Florida and Texas...and according to what I hear, the previously written off state of CA is now on their radar and "in play". Oh, and I forgot: There's no Ross Perot to take 19% of the vote...most of it from swing voters.
Again. Tell me how he's going to lose. All partisanship and personal feelings aside, jimmac. Explain it to me.
I'm paraphrasing from Jack Beatty's Op Ed peice BTW since he said it way better than i could.
I can NOT believe they will relect him because by doing so:
A majority will have demonstrated that democratic accountability is finished.
That you can fail in everything and be re-elected president.
You can preside over the most catastrophic failure of intelligence and national defense in history. Can fire no one associated with this fatal chain of blunders and bureaucratic buck-passing.
Can oppose an inquest into September 11 for more than a year until pressure from the relatives of those killed on that day becomes politically toxic.
Can name Henry Kissinger, that mortician of truth, to head the independent commission you finally accede to.
You can start an unnecessary war that kills hundreds of Americans and as many as 7,000 Iraqi civilians?adjusted for the difference in population, the equivalent of 80,000 Americans.
Can occupy Iraq without a plan to restore traffic lights, much less order.
Can make American soldiers targets in a war of attrition conducted by snipers, assassins, and planters of remote-control bombs?and taunt the murderers of our young men to "bring it on."
Can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on nation building?and pass the bill to America's children. (Asked to consider rescinding your tax cut for the top one percent of taxpayers for one year in order to fund the $87 billion you requested from Congress to pay for the occupation of Iraq, your Vice President said no; that would slow growth.)
You can lose more jobs than any other President since Hoover.
You can cut cops and after-school programs and Pell Grants and housing allowances for the poor to give tax cuts to millionaires.
You can wreck the nation's finances, running up the largest deficit in history.
You can permit 17,000 power plants to increase their health-endangering pollution of the air.
You can lower the prestige of the United States in every country of the world by your unilateral conduct of foreign policy and puerile "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric
Above all, you can NOT lie the country into war and your lies can be exposed?and, if a majority prefers ignorance to civic responsibility, you can still be reelected.
The above are the reasons why he will not win next year.
The election was soooooooo close last time. And the reason why was because people gave bush JUNIOR the benefit of the doubt. People are going to say thank mr "president" for your work after 911, but what have you done for me lately...The tanking ecomony (which if starting to be rebounding next year will still not "feel" it until after Nov. BTW...), the overturning of the envormental laws, the giveaways to the rich...the war, the lies.
Less than 1 percent separated them last time.
Does anyone actuallty believe General Wesley "war hero, clean cut, smart, rhodes scholar, articulate, outsider, liberal on social issues, could teach 10 things to bush JUNIOR about patriotism by breakfast" Clark won't be + 5 points after the first debate? All it takes is 1 percent to win*
There is no doubt now though...
This son-of-a-bush is out of there next november**
*unless you have friends in the supreme court
**Unless he manufactures another threat or another war in which case he will lie and once again our soldiers will die...
With all of this talk about debt, it is important to note that even with records being surpassed, we still have a much, much, much lower budget deficit to GDP ratio than an overwhelming majority of other nations. I'm not defending Bush's spending because I think it is money spent incorrectly, however, stop getting your panties in a bunch about the size of it.
With all of this talk about debt, it is important to note that even with records being surpassed, we still have a much, much, much lower budget deficit to GDP ratio than an overwhelming majority of other nations. I'm not defending Bush's spending because I think it is money spent incorrectly, however, stop getting your panties in a bunch about the size of it.
They have their collective panties in a bunch because it was a surplus before Bush took office. For the first time in many years we were out of debt. Now we're right back where we started. Only worse. We will likely be paying for this one for the rest of our lives.
They have their collective panties in a bunch because it was a surplus before Bush took office.
A surplus is mismanagement of funds. There NEVER should be a surplus. When there is a surplus, it means they are taking too much money from us.
Quote:
For the first time in many years we were out of debt. Now we're right back where we started. Only worse. We will likely be paying for this one for the rest of our lives.
There are plenty of things that could be cut to balance the budget AND lower taxes for everyone. That's the problem with the way politics in this country works. It's OK to spend yourself out of a recession ONLY if you contract spending when there is prosperity.
Let's legalize drugs and stop subsidizing corporate farms and we'll see how much money we save.
Let's legalize drugs and stop subsidizing corporate farms and we'll see how much money we save.
I'm half with you! woohoo the new unholy Shawn-BR alliance against subsidizing corporate farms. (reverse alphabetical as to remedy past discrimination of people with names starting with a letter at the end of the alphabet) Sounds like a good time.
When did we lose the discussion about the debate? Now it's "even if my president's dick is smaller then your candidates dick your candidate doesn't have a chance". Can we get back to the DEBATE? (or do we have to wait till the next one rolls around and then post about it?)
When did we lose the discussion about the debate? Now it's "even if my president's dick is smaller then your candidates dick your candidate doesn't have a chance". Can we get back to the DEBATE? (or do we have to wait till the next one rolls around and then post about it?)
It was SDW attacking the notion any of the candidates were worthy against Bush. That was quite a few paragraphs ago.
A surplus is mismanagement of funds. There NEVER should be a surplus. When there is a surplus, it means they are taking too much money from us.
There are plenty of things that could be cut to balance the budget AND lower taxes for everyone. That's the problem with the way politics in this country works. It's OK to spend yourself out of a recession ONLY if you contract spending when there is prosperity.
Let's legalize drugs and stop subsidizing corporate farms and we'll see how much money we save.
While I might agree with you about certain things you're missing the point. We were in great shape before Bush took over. I don't remember any time since my childhood ( which in some cases is more than the age of many of the posters on this board ) that we weren't in debt.
So help me if the conservatives blame it all on the lame excuse of 911 or dotcom this dotcom that I'll puke!
Now we're at the other extreme. Perhaps with that surplus and proper management we could have weathered this recession better.
This debt will be around for a long time. Kind of sad really.
A surplus is mismanagement of funds. There NEVER should be a surplus. When there is a surplus, it means they are taking too much money from us.
Nonsense. When there is a huge national debt, surpluses are a good thing. Interest on the debt is one of the largest items in the federal budget. That means we are paying taxes to correct for previous years' deficits. If we can pay down the debt with surpluses, future generations will have less of a burden.
If I have tons of credit card debt, I shouldn't spend every cent of my income. Instead, I should take in more than I spend, and use the remainder to pay down my credit card debt.
You would be right if we didn't have a huge national debt, but we do.
Nonsense. When there is a huge national debt, surpluses are a good thing. Interest on the debt is one of the largest items in the federal budget. That means we are paying taxes to correct for previous years' deficits. If we can pay down the debt with surpluses, future generations will have less of a burden.
Repayment of the debt should be factored in as a regular expense. It should not be taken from any surplus.
Repayment of the debt should be factored in as a regular expense. It should not be taken from any surplus.
It sounds like you're saying it's normal and ok for the country to be in debt all the time. Especially the kind of debt we have now. Sorry I don't buy that one.
Comments
It's not that I want this to happen. It's just that I know how things go under someone like Bush. It will get a little better then we'll slide right back ( after the election ).
That is just meaningless garbage. It's been more than a year since I asked you which economic polices in particular has Bush implemented that you see as the problem. Moreover, what did Clinton do in particular that aided the economy? You may think I'm being a smart-ass but I'm seriosuly asking.
Tell me SDW. Have we found any solid evidence that Saddam had WOMD and a way to deploy them so as to be considered an imminent threat to the US shortly before the war?
Yes. You should research Mr. Kay's report. We've found missles capable of travelling 1,000 miles....the limit was 93 if I recall. Mr. Kay says that while we haven't found actual chemicals, Saddam's intent to violate UN resolutions delibrately and continue to develop said weapons was clear. the media has conveniently ignored this...and so have you.
On the one hand he's a snake in the grass liar. Out to feather his own nest and to hell with the american people.
On the other hand he's incompetent and not worthy of being president.
Take your pick.
Ah. Jimmac's classic False Dilemma debate tactic. I've seen nothing telling me Bush is incomeptent. The economy is improving after two tax cuts pushed by...ahem...Bush. He's been brilliant in the aftermath of 9/11 and I agree with his approach completely. The United States should not bow at the alter of the UN every time it needs to take action. He has chosen to fight the war on terror overseas rather than here. Incompetent? As far as lying, I've seen no evidence of that either. Your entire argument is that we haven't found the actual chemicals. This, despite finding just about every other thing in the world over there.
I don't know why I waste my time with you. You don't get your facts straight and they are always slanted by your viewpoint. And yes I will bring up at election time your " I told you so ". Some how I think you'll be absent from this forum for awhile after the election however.
I don't get MY facts straight? What facts have you presented? You've presented NONE. You rely on pure rhetoric. You have given no reasons for your viewpoints AT ALL. You think Bush will lose and have again provided NO rational for your prediction. I presented a list of 13 factors in the election...what have you done? What has any liberal here done, other than scream "Out the Door in 2004"?
I also find it entertaining that what I say is dismissed as blindly partisan and non-thinking, while you can make all the unsubstantiated claims and predictions you like. Yes, I support Bush. That doesn't mean I'm blind to reality. The reality is that the Democratic field is weak. The reality is that the Demcoratic party is fundamentally screwed right now. The reality is that the Democrats have no meaningful majority anywhere. They don't have the Presidency. They don't have Congress. They don't command a majority of Governorships. They don't even command a majority of state bicameral legislatures. They lost a historic recall in a hugely Democratic state. 61% of the state voted REPUBLICAN. They are in total disaray without a strong leader.
Bush is incumbent, extraordinarily well funded, and much smarter politically than you give him credit for. He will be seen as the strong 9/11 leader and the commander-in-chief through two wars. The Republican party is well-organized and he's running unapposed. The Democrats are going to beat the hell out of each other and spend a ton in the process. Dean and Clark...and perhaps Kerry are going to look like Rocky Balboa fighting Mr. T at the end of the primaries. Bush, by contrast, will have $170m of unspent money...ready to be focused on one man. The economy will be growing at 5% (projected). The Republicans control Florida and Texas...and according to what I hear, the previously written off state of CA is now on their radar and "in play". Oh, and I forgot: There's no Ross Perot to take 19% of the vote...most of it from swing voters.
Again. Tell me how he's going to lose. All partisanship and personal feelings aside, jimmac. Explain it to me.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Ah. Jimmac's classic False Dilemma debate tactic. I've seen nothing telling me Bush is incomeptent. The economy is improving after two tax cuts pushed by...ahem...Bush. He's been brilliant in the aftermath of 9/11 and I agree with his approach completely. The United States should not bow at the alter of the UN every time it needs to take action. He has chosen to fight the war on terror overseas rather than here. Incompetent? As far as lying, I've seen no evidence of that either. Your entire argument is that we haven't found the actual chemicals. This, despite finding just about every other thing in the world over there.
Holy crap.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Tell me how he's going to lose.
Polls: Bush has an approval rating right around the magical 50%, and a majority believes he should not be reelected to another term. A majority believe the country is headed on the wrong track. He is right about where LBJ, Carter, and GHW Bush were at this point in their terms. In generic ballots, the country prefers a Democrat to Bush, and both Kerry and Clark are about even if not ahead of Bush, despite the fact that most people probably have never heard of either of them.
Economy: Bush will be the first president since the Great Depression to show a net loss of jobs. That won't change in the next year, even if the economy does pick up. Despite inheriting a surplus from Clinton, Bush now has the largest deficit in history. Growth may even be at 5%, but by the time the election rolls around in a year, Americans will know exactly what the deficit is in billions and exactly how many jobs have been lost in millions, if Democratic campaign managers do their jobs.
Iraq: Half of the country disapproves of the way Bush handled Iraq, believes the war makes us less safe rather than more safe, and believes Bush misled the country about WMDs. Most importantly, things are not going to get much better there, from the POV of the American public. Troops won't be home yet, they'll probably continue to be regularly killed, and the Shiites will probably still be protesting us somewhere or other in the country. And Bush's staged and tax-payer costly aircraft carrier landing will look pretty pathetic in comparison to either Clark's or Kerry's purple hearts, silver stars, etc. etc. that they earned in combat.
I also think if Democrats are smart, they'll go right for Bush's base, and compare Bush's 20+% increase in non-military discretionary domestic spending to Clinton's net spending decrease in their first terms. Clinton declared the era of big government over, and Bush and Congressional Republicans declared it started again. That could depress conservative turnout for Bush, if played correctly and if the Democratic nominee doesn't have huge new spending plans like Gephardt and Dean.
Republicans have always had more money than Democrats, so Bush's advantage there isn't new or anything for Dems to worry about.
The electoral map is just about dead-even, as it was last time around. A few swing states will determine the election, and because most of Bush's 3 million lost jobs have been manufacturing jobs, a large number of which are in a few of those important swing states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, he may have more trouble there than he did last time around.
[edit]
PS, since 1960, only two presidents have served two full terms, if I'm counting right. Post-Watergate, two presidents were re-elected (Reagan and Clinton) and two were un-elected (Carter and Bush). So the power of the incumbency is not as strong as one might think.
Originally posted by bunge
Holy crap.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
SDW is just a veritable font of bull!
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:
That is just meaningless garbage. It's been more than a year since I asked you which economic polices in particular has Bush implemented that you see as the problem. Moreover, what did Clinton do in particular that aided the economy? You may think I'm being a smart-ass but I'm seriosuly asking.
Yes. You should research Mr. Kay's report. We've found missles capable of travelling 1,000 miles....the limit was 93 if I recall. Mr. Kay says that while we haven't found actual chemicals, Saddam's intent to violate UN resolutions delibrately and continue to develop said weapons was clear. the media has conveniently ignored this...and so have you.
Ah. Jimmac's classic False Dilemma debate tactic. I've seen nothing telling me Bush is incomeptent. The economy is improving after two tax cuts pushed by...ahem...Bush. He's been brilliant in the aftermath of 9/11 and I agree with his approach completely. The United States should not bow at the alter of the UN every time it needs to take action. He has chosen to fight the war on terror overseas rather than here. Incompetent? As far as lying, I've seen no evidence of that either. Your entire argument is that we haven't found the actual chemicals. This, despite finding just about every other thing in the world over there.
I don't get MY facts straight? What facts have you presented? You've presented NONE. You rely on pure rhetoric. You have given no reasons for your viewpoints AT ALL. You think Bush will lose and have again provided NO rational for your prediction. I presented a list of 13 factors in the election...what have you done? What has any liberal here done, other than scream "Out the Door in 2004"?
I also find it entertaining that what I say is dismissed as blindly partisan and non-thinking, while you can make all the unsubstantiated claims and predictions you like. Yes, I support Bush. That doesn't mean I'm blind to reality. The reality is that the Democratic field is weak. The reality is that the Demcoratic party is fundamentally screwed right now. The reality is that the Democrats have no meaningful majority anywhere. They don't have the Presidency. They don't have Congress. They don't command a majority of Governorships. They don't even command a majority of state bicameral legislatures. They lost a historic recall in a hugely Democratic state. 61% of the state voted REPUBLICAN. They are in total disaray without a strong leader.
Bush is incumbent, extraordinarily well funded, and much smarter politically than you give him credit for. He will be seen as the strong 9/11 leader and the commander-in-chief through two wars. The Republican party is well-organized and he's running unapposed. The Democrats are going to beat the hell out of each other and spend a ton in the process. Dean and Clark...and perhaps Kerry are going to look like Rocky Balboa fighting Mr. T at the end of the primaries. Bush, by contrast, will have $170m of unspent money...ready to be focused on one man. The economy will be growing at 5% (projected). The Republicans control Florida and Texas...and according to what I hear, the previously written off state of CA is now on their radar and "in play". Oh, and I forgot: There's no Ross Perot to take 19% of the vote...most of it from swing voters.
Again. Tell me how he's going to lose. All partisanship and personal feelings aside, jimmac. Explain it to me.
You didn't anwer the WOMD question.
You are now in check.
PS. Man I can't wait until election night!
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/p...2003-09-24.htm
I'm paraphrasing from Jack Beatty's Op Ed peice BTW since he said it way better than i could.
I can NOT believe they will relect him because by doing so:
A majority will have demonstrated that democratic accountability is finished.
That you can fail in everything and be re-elected president.
You can preside over the most catastrophic failure of intelligence and national defense in history. Can fire no one associated with this fatal chain of blunders and bureaucratic buck-passing.
Can oppose an inquest into September 11 for more than a year until pressure from the relatives of those killed on that day becomes politically toxic.
Can name Henry Kissinger, that mortician of truth, to head the independent commission you finally accede to.
You can start an unnecessary war that kills hundreds of Americans and as many as 7,000 Iraqi civilians?adjusted for the difference in population, the equivalent of 80,000 Americans.
Can occupy Iraq without a plan to restore traffic lights, much less order.
Can make American soldiers targets in a war of attrition conducted by snipers, assassins, and planters of remote-control bombs?and taunt the murderers of our young men to "bring it on."
Can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on nation building?and pass the bill to America's children. (Asked to consider rescinding your tax cut for the top one percent of taxpayers for one year in order to fund the $87 billion you requested from Congress to pay for the occupation of Iraq, your Vice President said no; that would slow growth.)
You can lose more jobs than any other President since Hoover.
You can cut cops and after-school programs and Pell Grants and housing allowances for the poor to give tax cuts to millionaires.
You can wreck the nation's finances, running up the largest deficit in history.
You can permit 17,000 power plants to increase their health-endangering pollution of the air.
You can lower the prestige of the United States in every country of the world by your unilateral conduct of foreign policy and puerile "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric
Above all, you can NOT lie the country into war and your lies can be exposed?and, if a majority prefers ignorance to civic responsibility, you can still be reelected.
The above are the reasons why he will not win next year.
The election was soooooooo close last time. And the reason why was because people gave bush JUNIOR the benefit of the doubt. People are going to say thank mr "president" for your work after 911, but what have you done for me lately...The tanking ecomony (which if starting to be rebounding next year will still not "feel" it until after Nov. BTW...), the overturning of the envormental laws, the giveaways to the rich...the war, the lies.
Less than 1 percent separated them last time.
Does anyone actuallty believe General Wesley "war hero, clean cut, smart, rhodes scholar, articulate, outsider, liberal on social issues, could teach 10 things to bush JUNIOR about patriotism by breakfast" Clark won't be + 5 points after the first debate? All it takes is 1 percent to win*
There is no doubt now though...
This son-of-a-bush is out of there next november**
*unless you have friends in the supreme court
**Unless he manufactures another threat or another war in which case he will lie and once again our soldiers will die...
Originally posted by BR
With all of this talk about debt, it is important to note that even with records being surpassed, we still have a much, much, much lower budget deficit to GDP ratio than an overwhelming majority of other nations. I'm not defending Bush's spending because I think it is money spent incorrectly, however, stop getting your panties in a bunch about the size of it.
They have their collective panties in a bunch because it was a surplus before Bush took office. For the first time in many years we were out of debt. Now we're right back where we started. Only worse. We will likely be paying for this one for the rest of our lives.
Originally posted by jimmac
They have their collective panties in a bunch because it was a surplus before Bush took office.
A surplus is mismanagement of funds. There NEVER should be a surplus. When there is a surplus, it means they are taking too much money from us.
For the first time in many years we were out of debt. Now we're right back where we started. Only worse. We will likely be paying for this one for the rest of our lives.
There are plenty of things that could be cut to balance the budget AND lower taxes for everyone. That's the problem with the way politics in this country works. It's OK to spend yourself out of a recession ONLY if you contract spending when there is prosperity.
Let's legalize drugs and stop subsidizing corporate farms and we'll see how much money we save.
Originally posted by BR
Let's legalize drugs and stop subsidizing corporate farms and we'll see how much money we save.
I'm half with you! woohoo the new unholy Shawn-BR alliance against subsidizing corporate farms. (reverse alphabetical as to remedy past discrimination of people with names starting with a letter at the end of the alphabet) Sounds like a good time.
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
When did we lose the discussion about the debate? Now it's "even if my president's dick is smaller then your candidates dick your candidate doesn't have a chance". Can we get back to the DEBATE? (or do we have to wait till the next one rolls around and then post about it?)
It was SDW attacking the notion any of the candidates were worthy against Bush. That was quite a few paragraphs ago.
Originally posted by BR
A surplus is mismanagement of funds. There NEVER should be a surplus. When there is a surplus, it means they are taking too much money from us.
There are plenty of things that could be cut to balance the budget AND lower taxes for everyone. That's the problem with the way politics in this country works. It's OK to spend yourself out of a recession ONLY if you contract spending when there is prosperity.
Let's legalize drugs and stop subsidizing corporate farms and we'll see how much money we save.
While I might agree with you about certain things you're missing the point. We were in great shape before Bush took over. I don't remember any time since my childhood ( which in some cases is more than the age of many of the posters on this board ) that we weren't in debt.
So help me if the conservatives blame it all on the lame excuse of 911 or dotcom this dotcom that I'll puke!
Now we're at the other extreme. Perhaps with that surplus and proper management we could have weathered this recession better.
This debt will be around for a long time. Kind of sad really.
Originally posted by BR
A surplus is mismanagement of funds. There NEVER should be a surplus. When there is a surplus, it means they are taking too much money from us.
Nonsense. When there is a huge national debt, surpluses are a good thing. Interest on the debt is one of the largest items in the federal budget. That means we are paying taxes to correct for previous years' deficits. If we can pay down the debt with surpluses, future generations will have less of a burden.
If I have tons of credit card debt, I shouldn't spend every cent of my income. Instead, I should take in more than I spend, and use the remainder to pay down my credit card debt.
You would be right if we didn't have a huge national debt, but we do.
Originally posted by BRussell
Nonsense. When there is a huge national debt, surpluses are a good thing. Interest on the debt is one of the largest items in the federal budget. That means we are paying taxes to correct for previous years' deficits. If we can pay down the debt with surpluses, future generations will have less of a burden.
Repayment of the debt should be factored in as a regular expense. It should not be taken from any surplus.
Originally posted by BR
Repayment of the debt should be factored in as a regular expense. It should not be taken from any surplus.
It sounds like you're saying it's normal and ok for the country to be in debt all the time. Especially the kind of debt we have now. Sorry I don't buy that one.
Originally posted by BR
Repayment of the debt should be factored in as a regular expense. It should not be taken from any surplus.
You must not manage your funds very well...
Originally posted by billybobsky
You must not manage your funds very well...
He's barely old enough to drink.
Originally posted by giant
He's barely old enough to drink.
Some of us youngsters here at AO aren't so damn unequivocal all the time. DO YOU HEAR ME BECAUSE I LIKE TO USE CAPITAL LETTERS?!
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Some of us youngsters here at AO aren't so damn unequivocal all the time. DO YOU HEAR ME BECAUSE I LIKE TO USE CAPITAL LETTERS?!
Yes but we remember what it was like to be 21 like BR. That was 29 years ago for me.
Just so you know not a knock against the young.