Early Presidential Poll [Archive] - Page 2

SintonFan

04-01-2004, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
My problem with that is that It is become evident that he had people within his administration and inteligence that stated that they didnot have evidence of a connection to terrorism ( his own Terrorist expert says there never was a conection between terrorist and Iraq).. My problem with that is that hundreds of Americans have died for a lie. We cant find ONE person willing to come forward with ANY information about WMDs and there is a huge reward out there.. There were none.. Bush was bound and determined to go into Iraq. I have a problem with going to war for such political purposes... He screwed up big time when he diverted the effort away from terrorisim( after all it is suppose t be a war on terror) and Invaded Iraq.
If it has become a war on WMDs then we should have gone into Korea way before ever thinking about Iraq.
Special intrest serving? like Haliburton???Iraq....? Oil..? Vice president..?
Heck Shrub stinks of special intrests like BIG BUISNESS..
.
Quoted by the spielmyster,"My problem with that is that hundreds of Americans have died for a lie."
.
.
Do you explain just what killed all those Kurds and Iraqis from the late 80's to mid 90's. It was gas man.
Quoted from a news release during the Iranian war from 1988,"Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border."
I guess thats not WMDs. Chemical weapons?
Another quote,"The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja."
Wow, Iran used gas too. Let me hear Kerry say we're going into Iran to go after the terrorist(which are there too) and their WMDs.
Wanna quote your guy?

SintonFan

04-01-2004, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by spiveyrat
Last I heard, fundraising wasn't illegal. What's your beef with that?
.
What make's Meanie mad is the fact that Conservatives represent middle America. They are out of power and it pi$$es them off.

SintonFan

04-01-2004, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
YES, POOR JOB. :doh: Crap, every country has short or intermediate range missiles. we better get ready for more invasions if we plan to take down every dictatorship who has intermediate range missiles or short range missiles. All we did in invading Iraq was to help create more Osama Binladens through out the Isalmic world. US invasion of Iraq only made the war on terror harder because now 90% of the Islamic world HATES the US. it was not THAT bad before the invasion. Sure we were not loved but US hatered has risen to new hights now. we actualy had some support from the Islamic world in Afganastan... now this is not the case. we screwed up going into Iraq.. AGAIN I say Why didnt Shrub invade Korea? after all they are part of the "axis of evil" anrnt they? and they actualy admit to having the A bomb ( not chemical weapons). we all know why. They would be no push over. Iraq is just a punching bag for Bush because he cant get binladen.
.
You *not too good person*(name calling is not too good)...
Have you heard of all the great things happening in Iraq and Afganistan today and in the last year? Of course not...
It's not being reported. Challenge me on this and you will lose on this forum.:)
What happended yesterday was at a power center for Saddam and terrorist. If we leave now or recoil, then there would be more Bin-Ladens. I love the socialist, communist democrats, they would sell this country's soul to regain power. lol
Sorry, they are doing it now and have been at it for awhile....:eek:

SintonFan

04-01-2004, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Oh yeah right they took them to syria... and not one Iraqi who knows about it is willing to open his mouth and collect the HUGE reward that the US is offering and has been offering for information about WMDs. Im sure that all the Iraqi people involed or who know anythnig about it are filthy rich and dont need the million dollar reward.. LOL.. wake up! there were NO WMDs. It was an excuse to go into Iraq and divert attention from the poor job "shrub " is doing on the war on terror. "Mega-Murder Machine"?. Well now, If thats the standard it takes for the us to invade a country then sounds like we will have to go into half a dozen or so countries after Iraq.... Bush is Laughable.. He talks about Sadam and Iraq being a threat to the US and the world because of links to terrorism( no links found yet ) and WMDs ( none found yet) and all the while you have North Korea standing over here basicaly saying " yeah we have atom bombs , what are you going to do about it?" and what do we do about that? Invade Iraq LOL...This guy is HISTORY and all you shrub supporters know that .
.
.
If you read this right, Kerry should be shouting," LETS' GO INVADE NORTH KOREA!!!!!!!"
Well, Machine let's hear it from your canidates mouth????
Won't happen, will it???:p

Mean_Machine

04-01-2004, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan

PS - go figure out how the unemployement rate is calculated. Try and figure out what the "employable population" is and how it changes.

HELLO! I SAID JOB LOSS RATE. ITS EASY.. anyone can do it tahke the Number of Jobs in AMERICA WHEN BUSH TOOK OFFICE.. that figure would be 132.4 MILLION Jobs.. Subtract the Number WE HAVE NOW.. 129.6 that comes to a LOSS of 2.8 MILLION JOBS..

I have been trying to explain that to that guy several time but he either is not smart enough to understand it or keeps wantign to change the subject.. If More jobs are eliminated in the country than are being created then it comes to JOB LOSS.. Dont you the the Department of Labor Is accurat on this?? its thier math not mine.. Im just trying to help somone out of not understanding how the JOBB LOSS RATE is calculated...

Mean_Machine

04-01-2004, 09:04 AM

Mean_Machine

04-01-2004, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
A 2% decrease??? Thats Nearly 3 MILLION PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOST JOBS WITH NO JOB TAKING ITS PLACE.... BUSH is the ONLY PRESIDENT Since HERBERT HOOVER( Remember that guy??) WHO HAS HAD A NET LOSS OF JOBS SINCE HE HAS BEEN IN OFFICE

Jimmy Carter had a NET GAIN OF OVER 10 MILLION IN HIS 4 YEARS..
REGAN ADDED OVER 19 MILLION in his 8 years

BUSH Sr ADDED nearly 3 MILLION IN HIS 4 YEARS.

CLINTON ADDED OVER 23 MILLION in his 8 Years

GW BUSH HAS LOST NEARLY 3 MILLION IN ONLY 3 YEARS... BOY ... YOU GUYS WILL ACCEPT THIS IDIOT NO MATTER HOW CRAPY OF A JOB HE DOES...LOL Another one that needs to go ttt.

RPM

04-01-2004, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Old Cardinal
With the GNP growing at phenomenal rates, industrial expansion everywhere,, interest rates at a new low causing home and business building to boom--What else can the Demo's try to counter with but-"jobs shipped over seas." Well there have been a lot of Companies that have sent foreign workers(skilled and unskilled) INTO the US economy. Because you can skew this ambiguious info anyway to serve your needs, the Demos have to try to snag something to crybaby about. There is no massive unemployment, we have been able to absorb many coming into this country and put them actively into the workforce. If you want to work you can find a job in America; if you don't want a boss you can start your own businees....The Democrats basically are the ones that work just long enough to get back on unemployment and ride the system while they fish, sleep late, and hunt. If you Demo's would get out of the woods-- keep a year-round job; maybe even get some kind of an education--companies would not have to be shipping ANY employment overseas. Modern Liberal Democrats are the biggest drag on our society that we have to cope with at present. But they love to swaak doomday messages and try to vote more taxes out of the industerous Americans, while they pay no taxes themselves.

:eek: :eek: Some of the things here, man o man I wont even say anything......

RPM

04-01-2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
Mean_Machine... you have no class. You have no idea how to argue or debate something as mature adults should. You have brought out the "Redneck Fascist" comment earlier and now you are making fun of another poster saying in effect that he is mentally retarded.

I may disagree with others on here... but at least I won't embarass myself doing it.

Sheesh...

PS - go figure out how the unemployement rate is calculated. Try and figure out what the "employable population" is and how it changes.

So much for the Ignore option :clap:

Ranger Mom

04-01-2004, 09:51 AM

Just a question....if the unemployment rate/job loss....WHATEVER is so bad.....how come everywhere I go I see "Help Wanted" signs??

Would people rather be on unemployment or just NOT work rather than take a job that is beneath the one they just lost??

It just seems crazy to me that so many people are out of work, yet there are businesses out there that seem to be continually hiring!

Just a question I thought I would throw out there!!

JasperDog94

04-01-2004, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
or are you special ed and need to go to content mastery for help?

See what I mean about the name calling?

FYI - My math score on the SAT was 690. I think I know my stuff.

JasperDog94

04-01-2004, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Just a question....if the unemployment rate/job loss....WHATEVER is so bad.....how come everywhere I go I see "Help Wanted" signs??

Would people rather be on unemployment or just NOT work rather than take a job that is beneath the one they just lost??

It just seems crazy to me that so many people are out of work, yet there are businesses out there that seem to be continually hiring!

Just a question I thought I would throw out there!!
That's a terrific question Ranger Mom.

Mean_Machine

04-01-2004, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
See what I mean about the name calling?

FYI - My math score on the SAT was 690. I think I know my stuff.
No names were called.. By the way then If your math scores were so good then you should have been able to understand the numbers I posted without the 3rd grade math demonstration. Look If you want to Ignore the Facts Fine. but dont try to argue a point that you have no solid position on...

FACT
There were 132.4 MIllion Jobs in America the Day Bush took Office.
Now there are 129.8 Million Jobs in America. Thats Nearly 3 Million Jobs Fewer... FACTS... That Comes To JOB LOSS...

FACT- The Budget Deficit Is $500 BILLION.. A Record!

FACT- The Stock Market Is no where near what it was when He took office...
FACT- NO WMDs Have Been Found In IRAQ... NO CONECTION TO AL QAIDA FOUND... Those were the Reason given by bush for going to war there... If a country haveing a dictator who Is represive or Murders His own people is now the criteria for US invasion then Bush now has to do the same In KOREA, IRAN,SYRIA,LYBIA...ect... NO I DONT WANT THAT.. but you have to apply the same principle to all "dangerous" countries..

Look I understand all you bush supporters dont want to accept that bush has done a bad Job.. If you acctualy did you would have to take part of the blame for supporting him in the first place.. Its human nature not to want to take the blame for a bad desicion.

Mean_Machine

04-01-2004, 10:48 AM

Ranger Mom

04-01-2004, 10:56 AM

That brings another question up.....

Three years ago there were 5 women where I work...one left and rather than hire someone to take her place, the remaining 4 kinda absorbed her duties.....about a year later another girl left right about the same time a 3rd girl had surgery and was out for 6 months. All the sudden me and the remaining woman (who happens to be my boss) were doing the work that just a couple of years before..FIVE people were doing. We were able to stay caught up. so.....rather than hire someone to do a job that we were able to stay on top of.....we all got healthy raises, more vacation time, etc.

Are those 2 less jobs to blamed on President Bush also?? I don't see how you can blame EVERYTHING on one single man.....it's just ludicrious!!!!

Ranger Mom

04-01-2004, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
YES - there are some minimum wage jobs out there... always heve been..

Look they are not my Numbers.. they are the US DEPARTMENT OF LABORS #s.. Ask them..but they are factual.

Our local newspaper has help wanted ads that aren't ALL minimum wage salaries.......nurses, truck drivers, secretaries, etc.......it STILL doesn't make sense to me!!!

Mean_Machine

04-01-2004, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Our local newspaper has help wanted ads that aren't ALL minimum wage salaries.......nurses, truck drivers, secretaries, etc.......it STILL doesn't make sense to me!!!

In some areas. Job avalibility is better that others.. Look The Facts are what they are.. The US HAS LOST NEARLY 3 MILLION JOBS UNDER BUSH... Not my numbers... US Department OF Labor

JasperDog94

04-01-2004, 11:02 AM

FACT
The unemployment rate is the same now as when Clinton entered his 4th year as President. Quit using ONE statistic that nobody else uses. I went to the Dept. of Labor and "job loss" isn't even a category in their index . The "unemployment rate is.

FACT
We do have a huge deficit. I don't like it any more than you, but with the war and the recession at the same time, we had to spend money to stimulate the economy. Not create more taxes like Kerry always votes for.

FACT
When Bush took office, we were already in a recession. Add 9/11 on top of that and it just magnified the case. A lot of that deficit money was used to help businesses that lost billions of dollars due to that attack. In case you haven't noticed, it's working. Look at the stock market over the past year.

FACT
Iraq - 437,000 square km.
California - 410,000 square km.
Have you ever buried something in the sand? You ever see what happens after the wind blows? You'd never know it was there.

FACT
We know that Iraq had WMDs.

FACT
We found recent purchases of mobile chemical vehicles sold to Iraq by our wonderful French allies.

FACT
They used the WMDs on their own people.

FACT
They kicked weapons inspectors out of Iraq and refused to abide by UN regulations.

FACT
The UN did nothing to Iraq for these violations.

Need I go on?

Mean_Machine

04-01-2004, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
FACT
The unemployment rate is the same now as when Clinton entered his 4th year as President. Quit using ONE statistic that nobody else uses. I went to the Dept. of Labor and "job loss" isn't even a category in their index . The "unemployment rate is.

FACT
We do have a huge deficit. I don't like it any more than you, but with the war and the recession at the same time, we had to spend money to stimulate the economy. Not create more taxes like Kerry always votes for.

FACT
When Bush took office, we were already in a recession. Add 9/11 on top of that and it just magnified the case. A lot of that deficit money was used to help businesses that lost billions of dollars due to that attack. In case you haven't noticed, it's working. Look at the stock market over the past year.

FACT
Iraq - 437,000 square km.
California - 410,000 square km.
Have you ever buried something in the sand? You ever see what happens after the wind blows? You'd never know it was there.

FACT
We know that Iraq had WMDs.

FACT
We found recent purchases of mobile chemical vehicles sold to Iraq by our wonderful French allies.

FACT
They used the WMDs on their own people.

FACT
They kicked weapons inspectors out of Iraq and refused to abide by UN regulations.

FACT
The UN did nothing to Iraq for these violations.

Need I go on?
Show me Proof we have found anyWMDs...PROOVE IT!
all of you facts are oppinions except the geography of california... Remember there is a huge reward out there for info about any WMD... oh yeah all teh Iraqis are rish and cant use a million dollars.. lol.. Show me PROOF OF THEM... YOU CANT!!!!! LOL
YOU MUST LIVE UNDER A ROCK.. I have seen the whitehouse press people answer questions on JOB LOSS and they dont denie it but you do??? WAKE UP and READ A PAPER OR WATCH ( meet the press, face the nation,crossfire, ) and you will see ITS true.. Even the republicans dont dispute the US has LOST JOBS in the Last 3 years... but you know more than US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR???? LOL DENIAL..

Ranger Mom

04-01-2004, 11:36 AM

That STILL doesn't answer my question on the fact that my company eliminated 2 jobs, spread the workload among the 3 remaining women in the office, gave us raises, more vacation, etc................

How many jobs have something similiar happened?? My husband is a pumper, one of their vacation hands left for another job, rather than hire another person....they simply put on of the guys who works in the shop on vacation relief as needed.....there's another job that is gone........my question is..........WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THESE 3 JOBS THAT ARE NO LONGER THERE????

Mean Machine.... make me understand how these 3 eliminated positions are the fault of the Govt.....THEN, make me understand how businesses that are doing the exact same thing....creating less jobs, but not neccesarily putting anyone out of a job in the process....BTW, my husband received a raise also when that position was eliminated!

I am not stupid, I am a fairly intelligent woman, but unless you can answer the question without throwing percentages, links, etc. into the equation.....I still don't understand your thinking!!

spiveyrat

04-01-2004, 11:47 AM

Rangermom, Those are good examples of American companies becoming "leaner" and doing more with less... adapting to the realities of today's economics.

MM, Here's you some proof from the CIA website that Iraq, at the very least, had WMD's. Lots of maps, charts and pictures.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#05

LOTS of info... too much for me to go through.

JasperDog94

04-01-2004, 11:47 AM

MM,

Do you deny that Iraq used WMDs on their own people?

Do you deny that we found mobile chemical units sold to Iraq by France?

Do you deny that Iraq ever had WMDs?

I never claimed that we've found them...yet. It's like looking for the proverbial needle in the hay stack.

Please answer the above questions so we can have a logical conversation.

RPM

04-01-2004, 11:58 AM

With gas, energy, tuition, insurance, etc etc going up its hard to take a job that doesnt pay. Alot of companies here dont pay and some like in the valley even move over seas or across the border for cheap labor. With what you can pay one person here you can pay 3/4 people over there as a result of profit for the company. Haggar, Levis, etc all had several companies here and have now closed down and left thousands of people without jobs and in unemployment because of it. I went to college and got a degree. I am now a draftsman for a Commercial Plumbing & Mechanical Contractors. I will say im not happy with the pay but its not that bad. I have friends that I went to school with and studied in the same field and get paid just a bit over what a telemarketer makes with a GED. Companies here dont pay and ranger mom I too see the Help wanted signs on alot fast food restaurants when I travel up. Travel down here and you wont see much of that. I will tell you that there are alot of medical jobs such as nursing down here but not everyone wants to be a nurse. The rise on all the things mentioned above affects everyone rich or poor some just feel it more than others.

JasperDog94

04-01-2004, 12:09 PM

RPM,

I agree with some of what you said. It's tough when all the prices around you are rising, but your pay isn't. I'm really ticked off at the republican party right now about rising gas prices. They want to lower taxes, cut out the national gas tax. That effects everybody. But when I look at the alternative, I can't imagine how bad things would get under Kerry. That guy has voted for more tax hikes in the past two years that anyone else in congress!:eek:

Mean_Machine

04-01-2004, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
MM,

Do you deny that Iraq used WMDs on their own people?

Do you deny that we found mobile chemical units sold to Iraq by France?

Do you deny that Iraq ever had WMDs?

I never claimed that we've found them...yet. It's like looking for the proverbial needle in the hay stack.

Please answer the above questions so we can have a logical conversation.

Yes Iraq Used WMDs on the Kurds... But say they destroyed all the WMDs.... We have not forund otherwise and we have beeen there for a year..

Yes They did as some point have chemical units. but were destroyed... we have not forund otherwise or found anyone who will say otherwise regardless of the HUGE reward for Info...

Now we hear from washington experts that the whitehouse diliberatly distorted the info(that IRAQ attempted to buy Uranium from an African Nation) they had to make it seem Iraq was in development of an atom bomb, when it was not even close to being true...

Mean_Machine

04-01-2004, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
That brings another question up.....

Three years ago there were 5 women where I work...one left and rather than hire someone to take her place, the remaining 4 kinda absorbed her duties.....about a year later another girl left right about the same time a 3rd girl had surgery and was out for 6 months. All the sudden me and the remaining woman (who happens to be my boss) were doing the work that just a couple of years before..FIVE people were doing. We were able to stay caught up. so.....rather than hire someone to do a job that we were able to stay on top of.....we all got healthy raises, more vacation time, etc.

Are those 2 less jobs to blamed on President Bush also?? I don't see how you can blame EVERYTHING on one single man.....it's just ludicrious!!!!

He is the capitan of the ship we are in along with the Republican held congress... He has put us into a field of Icebergs... we were warned 3 1/2 years ago this would happen but we didnt listen... dont worry a new capitain is comming and bush will be thrown overboard!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

RPM

04-01-2004, 12:32 PM

Well Opec just stated that they will not meet demand and infact will LOWER there import/export meaning gas prices will rise again as well as energy prices, lotions, and even blacktop for our streets. All the White House(which has more rooms than mine) had to say was that they are disapointed........:rolleyes:

Like someone else said as a result "Looks like im skipping summer session" :( :mad:

RPM

04-01-2004, 12:34 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2004-03-31-oil_x.htm

Cameronbystander

04-01-2004, 12:49 PM

Mean_Machine,

I believe that you, and those like you, who can not see the great heart that our President has are truly unhappy and miserable people. I honestly think that he has the best interest of our country in his thoughts in everything that he does. This is 180 degrees opposite of the Clinton's who planned and schemed from early adulthood to obtain a position of power. At least GW fights for a solid postion and it is backed up with a solid Republician foundation that can be documented and debated. Unlike the democratic side that has no substantial base except to get rid of the conservative administration that represents a great majority of the states (maybe not the population because of the population density in the northeast and Cal).

If you are correct in your prediction that Kerry will be our next president, I predict that you will see the second coming of the Carter administration (by the way, I voted for Carter because of his religious affilation and at the time I was a younger and more naive individual, much like Big Blue DE). With this administration comes 20% interest and larger taxes and lots of trouble.

olddog73

04-01-2004, 12:54 PM

Mean_Machine, I noticed while reviewing your previous post that you seem to be posting at all times of the day. That just made me wonder if you are one of those unemployed persons you speak about so often, is that why your so angry? If so, theres no shame in being unemployed, over the years Ive found myself in that situation also, due to the down turn of the economy and the industry that I was working in. On both occasions I came to realize that if the jobs werent going to come to the location that I was at, I had better go to the jobs. And on both occasions I relocated and found a new job, maybe not the same type of job, but a paying job. Sure it was harder than sitting there drawing unemployment, but I did it. In most cases we all have choices. Not everyone chooses to fall back on the government for support. Some people really need help at times and Im glad that they can get it, but too many get it that could really get up and make it on their own. How many times do we see people laid off and just sit there drawing unemployment until their entitlement is all used up, knowing that there is no way their job is going to come back? Some times too proud to take a job that they consider beneath them.
I think there are situations where some people are not able to relocate, but I believe that in most cases, if you want to work, you can work, somewhere in some field, not necessarly in the field you were laid off from and not necessarly for the same money you were making before. But I have always thought it was crazy for these people to just sit there and live off the government.

Or maybe you just work for someone that pays you to talk about politics on 3A down low all hours of the day and night! ;)

JasperDog94

04-01-2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Yes Iraq Used WMDs on the Kurds... But say they destroyed all the WMDs.... We have not forund otherwise and we have beeen there for a year..

but you also said this...

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
all of you facts are oppinions except the geography of california...

So which is it? Are they all opinions or are some of them facts or are all of them facts? Make sure that you make up your mind before you post.:rolleyes:

Ranger Mom

04-01-2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
He is the capitan of the ship we are in along with the Republican held congress... He has put us into a field of Icebergs... we were warned 3 1/2 years ago this would happen but we didnt listen... dont worry a new capitain is comming and bush will be thrown overboard!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

:thinking: :thinking:
And that answers the question I asked..........HOW!!:thinking: :thinking:

Go back and read my question and try again.....you are just dancing circles around what I asked you!!!!

BullFrog Dad

04-01-2004, 01:08 PM

Man, I remember a couple of months ago when some of these posters were WHINING about UIL Girls' Athletic topics on the message board!!! ELECTION2004DOWNLOW.com

spiveyrat

04-01-2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Yes Iraq Used WMDs on the Kurds... But say they destroyed all the WMDs.... We have not forund otherwise and we have beeen there for a year..

Yes They did as some point have chemical units. but were destroyed... we have not forund otherwise or found anyone who will say otherwise regardless of the HUGE reward for Info...

Wow! a concession from MM! :clap:

BUT, how do you know they destroyed them, hmmm? :thinking:

WMD's aren't necessarily huge pieces of machinery easily seen. Huge amounts (enough to kill thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of people can be contained in very small containers. They may not even be in the country. There's speculation that they could have been brought into Syria. I don't know if I'm right, and you don't know if you're right. But I think my odds of being right are much better than yours.

Did you look at all the pictures, maps, and charts?

Old Cardinal

04-01-2004, 01:11 PM

I keep seeing that the stock market is "down", being stated by our socialistic liberals on here? It hit 10,400 this morning! There is tons of money being made in the last year by those that are buying Initial Public Offerings and Secondary Offerings-which directly aids the USA in new jobs and prosperity. It's a win-win for the investor, try it sometime....Cameronbystander, that was well said.... I have talked to some of our returning Military and they see the Democrats seemingly delighting every time an American is killed in Alf. , Iraq, or even Haiti. becaue it boisters their "cause": AND THE MILITARY IS TICKED!..I am beginning to agree with Ann Coulter in her very revealing new book called "Treason"; maybe the most "unpatriotic" people in American are the left-wing fanatical Democrats?

slpybear the bullfan

04-01-2004, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by RPM
So much for the Ignore option :clap:

I appreciate your observation. Yes, I will not ignore people who come to our board and defame other posters. And then make it a point to repost the statements a second time because they are so proud of themselves.

If you want to admire, condone, condemn, refute, ignore this behaviour, then do so.

I will take a stand and say that is not what I want our board to be like. There are plenty of ways to disagree with others that doesnt require inferring that they are mentally retarded. And it is a fine line that you can say that doesn't cross over. That isn't censoring people, that is respecting people.

For Example... I may not agree with BBDE on his issues, but I have enjoyed the discussions and also conversations with him on other topics. It doesn't mean I have to convince him my way is right. It also doesn't mean I will call him mentally retarded because he disagrees with my logic or thinking.

Ranger Mom

04-01-2004, 01:55 PM

:clap: :clap: AMEN Slpybear!!!!:clap: :clap:

JasperDog94

04-01-2004, 01:56 PM

Thanks slpy, I couldn't agree more. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

Mean_Machine

04-01-2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Cameronbystander
Mean_Machine,

I believe that you, and those like you, who can not see the great heart that our President has are truly unhappy and miserable people. I honestly think that he has the best interest of our country in his thoughts in everything that he does. This is 180 degrees opposite of the Clinton's who planned and schemed from early adulthood to obtain a position of power. I believe Bush believes in what he is doing.. I believe he is wrong 100%... I laugh at you statement about clinton considering Bush came with the silver spoon and the main reason he was elected was DADs name...

Mean_Machine

04-01-2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
I appreciate your observation. Yes, I will not ignore people who come to our board and defame other posters. And then make it a point to repost the statements a second time because they are so proud of themselves.

If you want to admire, condone, condemn, refute, ignore this behaviour, then do so.

I will take a stand and say that is not what I want our board to be like. There are plenty of ways to disagree with others that doesnt require inferring that they are mentally retarded. And it is a fine line that you can say that doesn't cross over. That isn't censoring people, that is respecting people.

For Example... I may not agree with BBDE on his issues, but I have enjoyed the discussions and also conversations with him on other topics. It doesn't mean I have to convince him my way is right. It also doesn't mean I will call him mentally retarded because he disagrees with my logic or thinking. Listen I didnot Call anyone Mentaly retarded... I did suggest that after explaining the point 3 different times to the same person and that same person still does not get that Im not talking about the "Unemployment rate" . Then for the 4th time show the most simple example of what I was talking about that could be shown then they may need some help . It was 3rd grade math...

for example I will love to show you..

132.4 million Jobs in the US On the day BUSH took Office.
129.6million Jobs now in the US after 3 years in Office
Do the Subtraction ( a third Grader should be able to) and you get 2.8 Milliion.. That people is simple.. ANYONE SHOULD UNDERSTAND IT... :)

And PS. I may take Offense at being called a Liberal because im a moderate. as one may not like being called Facist or Redneck..

Ranger Mom

04-01-2004, 03:19 PM

Oops....double post

See Below!!:D

Ranger Mom

04-01-2004, 03:20 PM

Well 3 of those jobs Bush had NOTHING to do with!!:D

And.....you still haven't answered my question.....just a straight up answer....that's all I am asking for!!

Mean_Machine

04-01-2004, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Well 3 of those jobs Bush had NOTHING to do with!!:D

And.....you still haven't answered my question.....just a straight up answer....that's all I am asking for!!

What Question did you ask. Sorry I must have missed it. restate it and I will answer it.

RPM

04-01-2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
I appreciate your observation. Yes, I will not ignore people who come to our board and defame other posters. And then make it a point to repost the statements a second time because they are so proud of themselves.

If you want to admire, condone, condemn, refute, ignore this behaviour, then do so.

I will take a stand and say that is not what I want our board to be like. There are plenty of ways to disagree with others that doesnt require inferring that they are mentally retarded. And it is a fine line that you can say that doesn't cross over. That isn't censoring people, that is respecting people.

For Example... I may not agree with BBDE on his issues, but I have enjoyed the discussions and also conversations with him on other topics. It doesn't mean I have to convince him my way is right. It also doesn't mean I will call him mentally retarded because he disagrees with my logic or thinking.

Do whatever you want. I never said you had to agree with anything anyone is saying just like i dont have to agree either. You came in here and then backed off by using your ignore option then posting about it showing to everyone that you wouldnt come back into this topic and now here you are. Classic but I new you would come back...and yes i watch my every step everywhere i go because I really dont trust anyone anymore....sad sad

Mean_Machine

04-01-2004, 05:27 PM

First I didnt call anyone Mentaly Retarded. and I would like you to show me where I did.. that should be set strait.

Second thing Id like to say is that you Republicans think its ok to say Democrats are lazy people who dont work and take hand outs. You say democrats are Radical Liberals. Then you take offence at bening called a Facist.. Ive got news for you. Facist are Extreem Conservatives... Like Comunist are Extreem Liberals. If you can take offence at the fact that I say your Ideas are Facist then I can take offence at you saying Im an Extreem Liberal. I am A MODERATE.. I dont agree with The far left or the far right. Like I said. Hitler would think Rush Limbaugh is Liberal.. I take offence to the fact you say democrats are lazy and look for a hand out. Im a democrat so your saying Im Lazy.. so If you cant take it dont dish it out.

slpybear the bullfan

04-01-2004, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by RPM
Do whatever you want. I never said you had to agree with anything anyone is saying just like i dont have to agree either. You came in here and then backed off by using your ignore option then posting about it showing to everyone that you wouldnt come back into this topic and now here you are. Classic but I new you would come back...and yes i watch my every step everywhere i go because I really dont trust anyone anymore....sad sad

RPM, you missed the point entirely. I didn't see anywhere where I was mandating people should agree with everything I say. I believe I left you to your opinions and then stated mine. Just because I put someone on ignore doesn't mean I still don't enjoy reading a thread and won't continue to read it... I enjoy discussing politics. I may quit posting when the exchange has grown pointless (in my opinion) but I still may read on. The ignore comments were simply directed to one poster whom I thought was waaaay too abrasive in his arguments.

Perhaps you should try to understand what/how the ignore feature works. If you will notice that when others quote people in their replies... you still get to read what the folks on the ignore option have to say. I put Mean_Machine on ignore. I still came and read and enjoyed this thread. But I also still had to read what Mean_Machine was posting via other peoples quoted replies. And when I saw him pushing the name calling a little too far, then I called him out on it.

I am sorry you don't trust anyone. I have several people I trust. Some of those folks are on this board. And I care about this board and I don't care for Mean_Machine's out of line comments on it.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

04-01-2004, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Old Cardinal
I keep seeing that the stock market is "down", being stated by our socialistic liberals on here? It hit 10,400 this morning! There is tons of money being made in the last year by those that are buying Initial Public Offerings and Secondary Offerings-which directly aids the USA in new jobs and prosperity. It's a win-win for the investor, try it sometime....Cameronbystander, that was well said.... I have talked to some of our returning Military and they see the Democrats seemingly delighting every time an American is killed in Alf. , Iraq, or even Haiti. becaue it boisters their "cause": AND THE MILITARY IS TICKED!..I am beginning to agree with Ann Coulter in her very revealing new book called "Treason"; maybe the most "unpatriotic" people in American are the left-wing fanatical Democrats?

You never answered my question about the military Old Card...did you actually serve?

Old Cardinal

04-01-2004, 09:54 PM

No I never served in the military. I had two children a fulltime job and carried a full load at college during those years. I did not however burn any draft card either. I had it all set up if I received a draft notice, I was going to instead go to the Coast Guard Academy in New Providence R.I.-- but I was never called.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

04-01-2004, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Old Cardinal
No I never served in the military. I had two children a fulltime job and carried a full load at college during those years. I did not however burn any draft card either.
And you have the audacity to sit there and criticise my father with your posts of Democrats being treasonous and unpatriotic, and you didn't even have the testicular fortitude to serve your own country, when he dedicated 4 years of his life to the Air Force and is a Vietnam Veteran. And here you are criticizing me for saying that it is a mistake to have people who too have kids and are overseas for 1,2,3 years only to see them for a period of approx. a month between each year. But I'm a bad person for having my own opinion and being a democrat...according to you, I'm just lazy and uneducated....OR 16...shows how much you know about me. You're as bad as Toby Keith. He sings about how patriotic he is, and rakes in millions of dollars a year because he raises the moral of the American spirits by selling the American blood that has been spilt overseas. He is just as patriotic as I am Republican.

Old Cardinal

04-01-2004, 10:30 PM

I raised a family during that time and was not ever drafted. If I had not been in college making the grades and not had a family, I would have been drafted. So if that makes me unpatriotic, so be it.

olddog73

04-01-2004, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
I believe Bush believes in what he is doing.. I believe he is wrong 100%... I laugh at you statement about clinton considering Bush came with the silver spoon and the main reason he was elected was DADs name...

Lets talk about that "silver spoon". How could we possibly imagine that someone with such great wealth as Bush has, could possibly have even a slim chance of representing the common man in our country?

Now on the other hand, John Kerry is truely a man of the common folk, he really understands your pain, NOT. Here is a list of the many homes owned by Mr. and Mrs. John Kerry, the common man and woman;

Ketchum, Idaho ski getaway/vacation home (Assessed value: $4.916 million)

Washington, D. C.- Georgetown area (Assessed value: $4.7 million)

Nantucket, Massachusetts waterfront retreat on Brant Point (Assessed value: $9.18 million)

Boston, Massachusetts- Beacon Hill Home (Assessed value: $6.9 million)

Oh, and he sold his estate in Italy to actor George Clooney, just before announcing his run for president (Sales Price: $7.8 million), I guess he thought it wouldn't fit in to his "common man" immage :eek: :eek:

Old "silver spoon" George W. Bush;

Crawford, Texas- Ranch (Estimated value before Bush became President, approximatly $3.5 to $4 million.)

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

04-01-2004, 10:33 PM

Well, you are according to your opinions.

Ranger Mom

04-01-2004, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by olddog73
Lets talk about that "silver spoon". How could we possibly imagine that someone with such great wealth as Bush has could possibly have even a slim chance of representing the common man in our country?

Now on the other hand, John Kerry is truely a man of the common folk, he really understands your pain, NOT. here is a list of the many homes owned by Mr. and Mrs. John Kerry, the common man and woman;

Ketchum, Idaho ski getaway/vacation home (Assessed value: $4.916 million)

Washington, D. C.- Georgetown area (Assessed value: $4.7 million)

Nantucket, Massachusetts waterfront retreat on Brant Point (Assessed value: $9.18 million)

Boston, Massachusetts- Beacon Hill Home (Assessed value: $6.9 million)

Oh, and he sold his estate in Italy to actor George Clooney, just before announcing his run for president (Sales Price: $7.8 million), I guess he thought it wouldn't fit in to his "common man" immage :eek: :eek:

Old "silver spoon" George W. Bush;

Crawford, Texas- Ranch (Estimated value before Bush became President, approximatly $3.5 to $4 million.)

Hey....I just got that e-mail along with pics......those are some "nice" houses!!!!

Mean_Machine

04-01-2004, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Hey....I just got that e-mail along with pics......those are some "nice" houses!!!! LOL boy thos RICH democrats!! how dare they! .. ONLY REPUBLICANS CAN BE RICH!!! Wonder why over 80% of Government Profesors in College are Democrats??? Maybe they see through all the conservative BS...:rolleyes:

Mean_Machine

04-01-2004, 11:02 PM

olddog73

04-01-2004, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
LOL boy thos RICH democrats!! how dare they! .. ONLY REPUBLICANS CAN BE RICH!!! Wonder why over 80% of Government Profesors in College are Democrats??? Maybe they see through all the conservative BS...:rolleyes:

Better yet, maybe they have never had to live in the real world, :rolleyes:

JasperDog94

04-01-2004, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
First I didnt call anyone Mentaly Retarded. and I would like you to show me where I did.. that should be set strait.

By asking the question, it was implied. You could have left that out completely. It was uncalled for.

FYI - I worked in content mastery as a TEACHER when I was in education. It's more of an insult to the students than to me. You really should be ashamed of yourself.:( :(

JasperDog94

04-01-2004, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Yes Iraq Used WMDs on the Kurds... But say they destroyed all the WMDs....

...and we trust Saddam because...:rolleyes:

JasperDog94

04-01-2004, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Like I said in an earlier post. You're talking about "job loss" and I'm talking about the unemployment rate. This category of "job loss" doesn't take into consideration that when one job goes away that another is taking it's place. Just because "your" job doesn't come back doesn't mean that there aren't jobs out there. That's the way an advancing economy works. Some jobs never come back and new ones are created in other industries.

I know that you'll disagree, but oh well...

MM - remember this post? Or how about this one?

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I guess you're not going to use the same numbers that everyone else in the country is using (Rep. and Dem.) so we're comparing apples to oranges.:)

I guess you can't get the fact that TWICE I already said that we're comparing two separate things. I'm using the standard that every modern president has used and is judged by. You're using a statistic that nobody ever talks about because it's not as important. Yes it is a valid stat. I'M NOT ARGUING THAT. I'm talking about the unemployment rate.

Clinton's first three years during an economic boom - 5.6%

Bush's first three years during recession and 9/11 - 5.6%

You have every right to think he's a terrible leader, but IMHO your blinded by your hate for him.

Ranger Mom

04-02-2004, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
What Question did you ask. Sorry I must have missed it. restate it and I will answer it.

Actually, it was several questions.....after you had answered my post on why I see so many help wanted signs every where I go! Below are the posts:

That brings another question up.....

Three years ago there were 5 women where I work...one left and rather than hire someone to take her place, the remaining 4 kinda absorbed her duties.....about a year later another girl left right about the same time a 3rd girl had surgery and was out for 6 months. All the sudden me and the remaining woman (who happens to be my boss) were doing the work that just a couple of years before..FIVE people were doing. We were able to stay caught up. so.....rather than hire someone to do a job that we were able to stay on top of.....we all got healthy raises, more vacation time, etc.

Are those 2 less jobs to blamed on President Bush also?? I don't see how you can blame EVERYTHING on one single man.....it's just ludicrious!!!!

Then....you answered something that I didnt' feel had anything to do with what I had originally asked....so I rephased it:

That STILL doesn't answer my question on the fact that my company eliminated 2 jobs, spread the workload among the 3 remaining women in the office, gave us raises, more vacation, etc................

How many jobs have something similiar happened?? My husband is a pumper, one of their vacation hands left for another job, rather than hire another person....they simply put on of the guys who works in the shop on vacation relief as needed.....there's another job that is gone........my question is..........WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THESE 3 JOBS THAT ARE NO LONGER THERE????

Mean Machine.... make me understand how these 3 eliminated positions are the fault of the Govt.....THEN, make me understand how businesses that are doing the exact same thing....creating less jobs, but not neccesarily putting anyone out of a job in the process....BTW, my husband received a raise also when that position was eliminated!

I am not stupid, I am a fairly intelligent woman, but unless you can answer the question without throwing percentages, links, etc. into the equation.....I still don't understand your thinking!!

sinton66

04-02-2004, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
No names were called.. By the way then If your math scores were so good then you should have been able to understand the numbers I posted without the 3rd grade math demonstration. Look If you want to Ignore the Facts Fine. but dont try to argue a point that you have no solid position on...

FACT
There were 132.4 MIllion Jobs in America the Day Bush took Office.
Now there are 129.8 Million Jobs in America. Thats Nearly 3 Million Jobs Fewer... FACTS... That Comes To JOB LOSS...

FACT- The Budget Deficit Is $500 BILLION.. A Record!

FACT- The Stock Market Is no where near what it was when He took office...
FACT- NO WMDs Have Been Found In IRAQ... NO CONECTION TO AL QAIDA FOUND... Those were the Reason given by bush for going to war there... If a country haveing a dictator who Is represive or Murders His own people is now the criteria for US invasion then Bush now has to do the same In KOREA, IRAN,SYRIA,LYBIA...ect... NO I DONT WANT THAT.. but you have to apply the same principle to all "dangerous" countries..

Look I understand all you bush supporters dont want to accept that bush has done a bad Job.. If you acctualy did you would have to take part of the blame for supporting him in the first place.. Its human nature not to want to take the blame for a bad desicion.

Sorry mean_machine, but you are calling people names by inferance.

Here's some facts for you.

The "balance/surplus" Clinton achieved was supported by the highest personal income tax I have ever paid. I claim "Married zero". I have done this for over thirty years. Most of the time I come out even, get a little back or pay a little in. Usually less than a hundred bucks. With Clinton's "surplus", I was writing checks to the IRS for an additional $1000 to $1500. Multiply that by the number of people that have a job and you can see where the "surplus" came from. Bush reduced the tax burden on all of us. The answer to reducing the deficit is to control spending. This is simply the oldest argument in existence between the parties.

The stock market is doing just fine and is growing every day. The temporary bump in the road it took was caused by the 9/11 attack. It was bound to have a detrimental effect, and would have happened regardless of who was in the oval office. To blame that on Bush is over-simplifying.

Hussein's connections to Al Quida are well documented. The US has been following the money trail for years. If as you claim, there is no connection, how do you explain the discovery of the terrorist training camp in northern Iraq captured by US troops? How do you explain a Boeing 707 sitting on the ground being used to train terrorists how to take over an airplane? How do you explain documented MULTIPLE meetings between Iraqi and Al Quida leaders in several locations around the world in the last ten years? How do you explain cash payments to the families of suicide bombers? What do you expect, Hussein to CONFESS? Get real

Clinton and his cronies were just as convinced that Iraq was holding WMD's as Bush. Every intelligence source we have was confirming it. The difference is that Bush had the guts to do something about it. At the very minimum he showed there is another use for cahones than getting them massaged by an intern underneath the big desk in the oval office. Now I ask you, who had the country's best interests at heart?

Your view that Bush has done a bad job is just that, YOUR view. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are NOT entitled to engage in name calling because people disagree with you. I gave you friendly advise to stop with the fascism inferances, now I'm TELLING you to stop it. Find another less inflamatory way to make your point or drop it.

spiveyrat

04-02-2004, 10:08 AM

Looks like the stock market is off to the races this morning. Must be because of the reported job growth in March (+308,000 jobs). The biggest job growth since April 2000. Go market GO!!! :D

AggieJohn

04-02-2004, 10:18 AM

but wait spiveyrat, according to the democrats bush and all the conservative white wingers are just war mongers and could care less about the employment rate or number of jobs created, how can this be????:thinking: :D

Old Cardinal

04-02-2004, 11:10 AM

With the USA Gross National Product growth booming, the Stock market booming and now the only handle that the Democrates could swing with-- taken away-- with( job growth increasing at an increasing rate); I think we just re-elected George W. Bush on that announcement this morning!

spiveyrat

04-02-2004, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Old Cardinal
With the USA Gross National Product growth booming, the Stock market booming and now the only handle that the Democrates could swing with-- taken away-- with( job growth increasing at an increasing rate); I think we just re-elected George W. Bush on that announcement this morning!

Why is it that generally good news for Americans is bad news for democrats? :thinking:

OC, yhey'll still try to hammer on the war in Iraq. ;) Or better yet, we'll now see a renewed interest in the price of gas. Which I'll admit I'm not wild about right now... nor am I wild about the White House's response of "disappointment". Hopefully, they'll start to work on leveraging OPEC.

JasperDog94

04-02-2004, 12:12 PM

How about funding for alternative sources for fuel? I'll admit that I don't know much about that subject, but we've go to stop our dependance on OPEC.

spiveyrat

04-02-2004, 12:27 PM

I think that would be wise. Our economy is ultra-dependant on being able to move goods to consumers. We won't be able to count on oil forever.

RPM

04-02-2004, 01:58 PM

What countries do we depend on oil from?

spiveyrat

04-02-2004, 02:59 PM

Check here...

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/oil.html

sinton66

04-02-2004, 07:22 PM

There are some domestic oil companies that do NOT import from OPEC. I saw a list of them published somewhere. I'll see if I can find it again.

slpybear the bullfan

04-02-2004, 09:27 PM

Guess what the top two countries are for most oil imported into the united States....

1.) Canada 50 MM bbls
2.) Mexico 49 MM bbls

This total of 99 MM bbls together makes up almost a third of the 288MM bbls imported.

less han 70 MM bbls are imported from the Persian gulf region.

less than half of the oil imported comes from OPEC (142 MM bbls.)

here is the link for the data from the Jan 2004 report from the energy department....

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_monthly/current/txt/table_35.txt

sinton66

04-02-2004, 09:49 PM

Here's the article I saw:

#1 - 'Just Say NO' to Terrorism

We CAN buy gasoline that's not from the Middle East. Gas rationing in the 80's worked even though we grumbled about it. The Saudis are boycotting American goods. We should return the favor. An interesting thought is to boycott their GAS. Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy from gas companies that don't import their oil from the Saudis. Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that every time I fill-up the tank, I am sending my money to people who are trying to kill me, my family, and my friends. I thought it might be interesting for you to know:

Which oil companies are the best to buy gas from and which major companies import Middle Eastern oil (for the period 9/1/00 - 8/31/01):

Shell 205,742,000 barrels

Chevron/Texaco 144,332,000 barrels

Exxon /Mobil 130,082,000 barrels

Marathon/Speedway 17,740,000 barrels

Amoco 62,231,000 barrels

If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION!

Here are some large companies that do NOT import Middle Eastern oil:

Citgo 0 barrels

Sunoco 0 barrels

Conoco 0 barrels

Sinclair 0 barrels

BP/Phillips 0 barrels

Hess 0 barrels

All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and each is required to state where they get their oil and how much they are importing. They report on a monthly basis. Keep this list in your car; share it with friends.

Stop paying for terrorism.............

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

04-02-2004, 09:52 PM

:clap: :clap: :clap: I agree with you 100% Sinton66.

slpybear the bullfan

04-02-2004, 09:53 PM

While visiting snopes.com, I also checked up on the following statements. They were listed as true. I double checked through the context provided and found that these were extremely interesting when compared with the current political year "waffling..." I went back and clipped more of the quotes where needed to flush out some context.

Enjoy, and remember... hindsight is 20-20.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein. "
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction. When Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear capabilities, the constraints he feels will diminish dramatically, and the risk to America’s homeland, as well as to America’s allies, will increase even more dramatically. Our existing policies to contain or counter Saddam will become irrelevant.

Americans will return to a situation like that we faced in the Cold War, waking each morning knowing we are at risk from nuclear blackmail by a dictatorship that has declared itself to be our enemy. Only, back then, our communist foes were a rational and predictable bureaucracy; this time, our nuclear foe would be an unpredictable and often irrational individual, a dictator who has demonstrated that he is prepared to violate international law and initiate unprovoked attacks when he feels it serves his purposes to do so."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts. "
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

04-02-2004, 09:59 PM

:thinking:

slpybear the bullfan

04-02-2004, 10:07 PM

It just illustrates that politicians as a group are creatures built to say things that voters want to hear...

DON'T be suprised when they agree or disagree with you. Most of them will change to support what keeps them elected.

Most...

sinton66

04-02-2004, 10:42 PM

Wow, Slpy, that's quite a find. Good job!

callandraise

04-02-2004, 10:56 PM

The only real difference between the democrats and the republicans is in how they propose to finance their spending.The demos want to tax the ---- out of us to pay for it and the republicans want to put on the credit card and let our children and grandchildren worry about how to pay for it.

sinton66

04-02-2004, 11:31 PM

They both definitely know how to spend money, that's for sure.

slpybear the bullfan

04-03-2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by sinton66
They both definitely know how to spend money, that's for sure.

Sinton66, you hit the nail on the head for me Ol Buddy. I have been asked a lot by my friends who I support, what party, etc. Rather than just throwing out the tired old line, "I vote for the man... not the party..." I tell people I vote my wallet. I don't mean that I support the party, man, etc. under whose tenure I benefited the most, (I believe that most politicians cannot do much to help or hurt the economy... the system is waaaayyyy to robust to allow folks that kind of power.) Instead, I vote to support my belief that the government is there to protect the citizens against enemies and tribulations, both foreign and domestic.

The gov cannot make me richer by taking taxes from others. Been tried in the past, will never work. The gov cannot make me poorer to make others richer... again, been there done that. What the gov should do is to provide a level playing field for all of us and protect us. And YES, it should provide for those in need.

Obviously, these are my opinions not a stated fact.

sinton66

04-03-2004, 03:24 PM

I agree, Slpybear. I have been advocating a fair and equal flat tax with NO deductions for years. Somewhere between 15 and 22% would suffice. If EVERY single taxpayer paid it, I think it would be more than enough. I also think the budget should be set in percentages of tax income, and never raised or lowered. If the government wants more income, put more taxpayers on the role, ie, create more jobs so they have more people paying in. Of course, I realize life isn't all that simple, but you get the idea.;)

BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END

04-03-2004, 08:53 PM

Well, I think my dad explained his idea on taxes pretty well, and I just want to see what any of ya'lls reply to it is. Let's say that all Americans have to pay a 20% tax on everything that they earn. On one hand, we have a Man A. raking in $300,000 per year and has a family and supports them, and we have Man B. who is only making $20,000 per year and has a family and supports 4 kids as well. Neither of their spouses work. Well, with this 20% tax imposed on their wages. Man A. pays a total of $60,000 in taxes, and Man B. pays $4,000 in taxes. Even though Man A. pays $60,000 in taxes, his lifestyle isn't going to change all that much and the man will be able to live a very comfortable life and be able to give his family everything they need seeing as how he is still bringing in $240,000 a year. Well then you have Man B. who is only making $16,000 per year now that he has been taxed and uses all of his money to allow his family to have something to eat, and has the inablility to put any money back in an attempt to get ahead. He, just as he convinced me, believes that there should be a scale set up to where the less income you have, the less taxes you have to pay. Man B. is flirting with poverty and doing his best to get ahead, and his future as well as his 4 kid's chances of being successful later in life are slim to none. Man A.'s kids on the other hand have the opportunity to grow up in luxury and drive fancy foreign vehicles to school and go to a prestigous college, while Man B.'s kids can only get into a college on a scholarship because the money just isn't there. I know that life isn't fair in some instances, and others will have more of an opportunity so succeed than others, but what do ya'll think of this idea. I'm not very familiar with all of this stuff, so will some of ya'll enlighten me?

Mean_Machine

04-04-2004, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
...and we trust Saddam because...:rolleyes:
You keep talking about Sadam and WMDSs.. WE FOUND NONE.. and No Connections to Al Qaida... REMEMBER .... THAT WAS THE WHOLE JUSTIFICATION FOR GOING IN..... NOW WE FIND OUT THERE WERE NONE.. NOW THE JUSTIFICATION IS.." Sadam was a bad man who killed his own people etc"..... Well if the real reason does not work then find another way to justify invading a country..

Mean_Machine

04-04-2004, 11:14 AM

A Flat tax would only raise taxes on poor people and cut taxes on the wealthy... sounds republican to me... Poor millionares......they are haveing a tough time.. some just cant afford to have that second vacation home or that 6o ft boat because of mean old uncle sam...

Out of the 13 industrialized countries in the world the US people pay fewer taxes per person than any other industrialized country..
Out of the 50 states, TEXAS residents pays just about the least ( ranking 46 or so) in taxes per person..
What does this mean? TEXANS have it better when it comes to paying taxes than just about anyone in the WORLD!
BUT .. Texas republicans Gripe about paying too much in taxes.. Its laughable..

Ranger Mom

04-04-2004, 01:01 PM

Mean_Machine...go back a couple of pages and find the questions that you asked me to re-post for you.

I posted them there again as you requested!

sinton66

04-04-2004, 01:19 PM

Sorry, mean_machine, but you're wrong on the flat tax. The rich people take advantage of deductions the lower class don't have access to. The lower classes already pay a flat tax of sorts by only being able to take the standard deduction. If you don't or can't itemize your deductions, you don't get the advantages. Your theory about it favoring the rich is nonsense.

SintonFan

04-04-2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Well, I think my dad explained his idea on taxes pretty well, and I just want to see what any of ya'lls reply to it is. Let's say that all Americans have to pay a 20% tax on everything that they earn. On one hand, we have a Man A. raking in $300,000 per year and has a family and supports them, and we have Man B. who is only making $20,000 per year and has a family and supports 4 kids as well. Neither of their spouses work. Well, with this 20% tax imposed on their wages. Man A. pays a total of $60,000 in taxes, and Man B. pays $4,000 in taxes. Even though Man A. pays $60,000 in taxes, his lifestyle isn't going to change all that much and the man will be able to live a very comfortable life and be able to give his family everything they need seeing as how he is still bringing in $240,000 a year. Well then you have Man B. who is only making $16,000 per year now that he has been taxed and uses all of his money to allow his family to have something to eat, and has the inablility to put any money back in an attempt to get ahead. He, just as he convinced me, believes that there should be a scale set up to where the less income you have, the less taxes you have to pay. Man B. is flirting with poverty and doing his best to get ahead, and his future as well as his 4 kid's chances of being successful later in life are slim to none. Man A.'s kids on the other hand have the opportunity to grow up in luxury and drive fancy foreign vehicles to school and go to a prestigous college, while Man B.'s kids can only get into a college on a scholarship because the money just isn't there. I know that life isn't fair in some instances, and others will have more of an opportunity so succeed than others, but what do ya'll think of this idea. I'm not very familiar with all of this stuff, so will some of ya'll enlighten me?
.
Big Blue, you forgot to add that Man B(with four kids) would recieve food stamps to the tune $1200-2400 per year. That amounts to a tax rebate. If you subtract the medium of $1800 from $4000 then he's realistically paying only $2200. That comes to around 11% of what he is really paying. Don't forget WIC if the kids are young. Knock off another couple of percent. Making that kind of money, his children would be on CHIPS! Knock off another few percentage points(at least). You see these would be NET savings in comparison to the actual cost of food and healthcare. And since these benefits are provided by our government you have to subtract these benefits from what he pays in taxes.
.
Ohh, don't forget his children all have the chance to go to college. They can take out a student loan. I did.;)

sinton66

04-04-2004, 01:43 PM

And guess, just guess who's paying for all of that. It isn't man B. It isn't man A. It's those of us in the middle that get stuck with the bill. Not enough money to afford the stuff that gets deductions, and too much wages to qualify for "free" benefits.

SintonFan

04-04-2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
A Flat tax would only raise taxes on poor people and cut taxes on the wealthy... sounds republican to me... Poor millionares......they are haveing a tough time.. some just cant afford to have that second vacation home or that 6o ft boat because of mean old uncle sam...

Out of the 13 industrialized countries in the world the US people pay fewer taxes per person than any other industrialized country..
Out of the 50 states, TEXAS residents pays just about the least ( ranking 46 or so) in taxes per person..
What does this mean? TEXANS have it better when it comes to paying taxes than just about anyone in the WORLD!
BUT .. Texas republicans Gripe about paying too much in taxes.. Its laughable..
.
Umm...
You called youself a moderate. That's not possible. You see moderates agree with issues on both sides. I can't think of one thing you posted which agrees with conservatives and/or Rebublicans. By that fact alone, you cannot be a moderate. It's just more smoke and mirrors on your behalf. You won't answer Ranger Mom's question, but enter your argument whenever it benefits your agenda.
I've come to realize that liberals are trying to associate themselves with the "Moderate" name just because their arguments are failing across the board as liberals. It just sounds better to be a "moderate" doesn't it? It's a nice ploy, but only if most folks don't understand what defines a moderate or liberal. Unfortunately, there are too many folks out who don't pay attention to politics. So becoming a "moderate" serves a purpose doesn't it? It broadens your appeal for ignorant voters. It also shows folks that the liberals aren't the only ones who have this same tired argument. But, in the end, a liberal is still a liberal no matter what they want to be called.:rolleyes:

sinton66

04-04-2004, 02:20 PM

"A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf".;)

SintonFan

04-04-2004, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Listen I didnot Call anyone Mentaly retarded... I did suggest that after explaining the point 3 different times to the same person and that same person still does not get that Im not talking about the "Unemployment rate" . Then for the 4th time show the most simple example of what I was talking about that could be shown then they may need some help . It was 3rd grade math...

for example I will love to show you..

132.4 million Jobs in the US On the day BUSH took Office.
129.6million Jobs now in the US after 3 years in Office
Do the Subtraction ( a third Grader should be able to) and you get 2.8 Milliion.. That people is simple.. ANYONE SHOULD UNDERSTAND IT... :)

And PS. I may take Offense at being called a Liberal because im a moderate. as one may not like being called Facist or Redneck..
.
Read two post above about "moderates".

Ranger Mom

04-04-2004, 03:06 PM

Here's is an e-mail I received.....hope it doesn't offend.....but it made ME laugh!!

LIBERALS and CONSERVATIVES

The division of the human family into its two distinct branches
occurred some 10,000 years ago, a few hundred years after the flood.Humans coexisted as members of small bands of nomadic
hunter/gatherers. In the pivotal event of societal evolution, beer was invented. This epochal innovation was both the foundation of modern civilization and the occasion of the great bifurcation of humanity into its two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain, and that was the
beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle or aluminum can had yet been invented, so it was necessary to stick pretty close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days killing animals to barbecue at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of the conservative movement.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting, learned how to live off conservatives by showing up for the BBQs every night and doing women's work like sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the liberal movement. Later, some of the liberals actually became women.

Liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, invention of group therapy and democratic voting to see how to divide the beer and meat that the conservatives provided. Women were not interested in democracy at that time because most of them were still women back then, and the conservatives fed them.

Conservatives are symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern Liberals like imported beer (they add lime), but most prefer white wine or foreign water in a bottle. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are on liberal menus. Their women have more testosterone than the men. Liberals like deviant sex and want others to like it too. Their first successful city governments were Sodom and Gomorra.

Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, and group Therapists are Liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule in baseball because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat, and still
provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumber jacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, soldiers, athletes, and generally anyone who works productively outside government. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals do not produce anything. They like to "govern" the producers and decide what is to be done with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals just stayed in Europe when conservatives were coming to America.

Conservatives have principles; believe in a Creator, and the rule of law. They practice charity and give to the poor, normally through their churches. When in doubt on an issue, they check both the Bible and the Constitution, which they use as a constant reference in a changing world. They believe in the concept of truth.

Liberals do not have principles, except for their dedication to
stealing production of conservatives and undermining principled
references such as the Bible and Constitution. They are never in doubt on an issue because they always do whatever is best for them without regard to others. They have no standard of reference. Liberals do not give to charity. They cultivate the poor like a cat cultivates a field of mice. They use the poor as voters and give them a portion of stolen tax money which they vote away from conservatives.

Conservatives believe in self defense, both at home and abroad. They own guns and use them to discourage liberals and other common criminals. They provide guns to the armed forces to discourage foreign liberals and other foreign criminals.

Liberals do not believe in conservative self defense. They disarm
conservatives, and then attack them with impunity by liberal armies with guns. King George, Hitler and Stalin were all liberals who abandoned the rule of Law, had no principles except their own self indulgence, and attempted to tax and govern conservatives. Liberals believe in BIG government. They think the United Nations is the ultimate answer.

Conservatives believe in the rule of law and when sitting on juries, convict common criminals and acquit fellow conservatives who have been charged by liberals. When serving in the armed forces, they shoot liberals from other countries who want to govern our country. Conservatives know the difference between a common-sense law and a bone-headed statute passed by some liberal from Massachusetts. When sitting on juries, they do not enforce bone-headed statutes, and don't explain their reasons.

Liberals only believe in whatever laws are appealing to them, such as the privilege of making a living by taxing conservatives. When sitting on juries, liberals convict producers and acquit liberals and other common criminals. Modern Judges are all liberals as they do not produce anything except chaos, and are paid with confiscated tax money. They consider it against the law to reference any source of law such as the Bible or Constitution. Like other liberals, they just make it up as they go and do what is best for them. Judge Roy Bean is their model.

The American cowboy, of course, is your basic, full-bore Conservative. A hundred years ago, an Englishman visiting Texas was attempting to find the owner of a huge cattle ranch. He rode up to one of the ranch hands, and inquired, "Pardon me, but could you perhaps tell me where I might locate your master?" To which the cowboy replied, "That s@&%$*@ ain't been born yet".

So, what'll it be? Wine or Beer? Domestic or Imported?

sinton66

04-04-2004, 03:20 PM

DAAAAAAYYYYYUUUUUUMMMMMMM!!!!!!!That's priceless, RangerMom. Best one yet.:D ROTFLMAO!!!!! Liberals and OTHER criminals, great!

SintonFan

04-04-2004, 04:39 PM

ROFLMAO!!!!
If I was drinking a beer in would be out my nose after reading that Ranger Mom! What a hoot!:D

olddawggreen

04-04-2004, 05:03 PM

Mean_Machine

04-04-2004, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Actually, it was several questions.....after you had answered my post on why I see so many help wanted signs every where I go! Below are the posts:

That brings another question up.....

Three years ago there were 5 women where I work...one left and rather than hire someone to take her place, the remaining 4 kinda absorbed her duties.....about a year later another girl left right about the same time a 3rd girl had surgery and was out for 6 months. All the sudden me and the remaining woman (who happens to be my boss) were doing the work that just a couple of years before..FIVE people were doing. We were able to stay caught up. so.....rather than hire someone to do a job that we were able to stay on top of.....we all got healthy raises, more vacation time, etc.

Are those 2 less jobs to blamed on President Bush also?? I don't see how you can blame EVERYTHING on one single man.....it's just ludicrious!!!!

Then....you answered something that I didnt' feel had anything to do with what I had originally asked....so I rephased it:

That STILL doesn't answer my question on the fact that my company eliminated 2 jobs, spread the workload among the 3 remaining women in the office, gave us raises, more vacation, etc................

How many jobs have something similiar happened?? My husband is a pumper, one of their vacation hands left for another job, rather than hire another person....they simply put on of the guys who works in the shop on vacation relief as needed.....there's another job that is gone........my question is..........WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THESE 3 JOBS THAT ARE NO LONGER THERE????

Mean Machine.... make me understand how these 3 eliminated positions are the fault of the Govt.....THEN, make me understand how businesses that are doing the exact same thing....creating less jobs, but not neccesarily putting anyone out of a job in the process....BTW, my husband received a raise also when that position was eliminated!

I am not stupid, I am a fairly intelligent woman, but unless you can answer the question without throwing percentages, links, etc. into the equation.....I still don't understand your thinking!!

Jobs have been absorbed for many years not just the last few. Look you want to dispute the Labor Departments Numbers Go ahead. they are what they are, 2.8 million Jobs lost..

Look Now you Republicans dont want to blame the bad Economy on Bush.. It is Bushs policies that put us where we are.. the Tax cut leads to High deficits and so on down to faliling economy.. Jobs move overseas leads to other job loss.. Look The Numbers are what they are.. First you folks dispute the fact that there are fewer Jobs in the US than there was before bush took office.. I then show you Links and Facts Backing up what I say.. Now you dont want Links and Numbers( I guess because you see Im right ). Now you want Me to analize as to why it is Bushes fault.. Look Its.. The worst Job creation record In HISTORY... thats the Fact.. Blame it on who you want .. Blame it on the Republican held Congress or Bush or the Moon.. I blame it on BUSH.. as will most in novermber.

Ranger Mom

04-04-2004, 06:46 PM

I don't want to look at the numbers, not because I think you are right, but because for every website you put, there is another website saying something else.

All I wanted was an answer to my question. Still trying to figure out whether or not I got one!!:confused: :confused:

Mean_Machine

04-04-2004, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
I don't want to look at the numbers, not because I think you are right, but because for every website you put, there is another website saying something else.

All I wanted was an answer to my question. Still trying to figure out whether or not I got one!!:confused: :confused:

Il tell you what.. dont believe me.. Just watch some of the political shows in the next few months and listen to the debates.. you will hear the same thing.. the white house does not even dispute that the Nation has lost nearly 3 Million Jobs in 3 years.. They just give a few excuses as to why and say its about to turn around.. so your disputing numbers even the white house says are right.

sinton66

04-04-2004, 07:25 PM

Much ado about nothing. Every economic indicator is up, jobs will follow likewise. Go find some numbers about the independant businesses that have been started. I know at least six people that lost their job and went into business for themselves and are doing nicely. Makes me wish I had sometimes. I don't think you'll be able to sway our votes. Bottom line, like RangerMom said, if you look hard enough, you can find numbers published by somebody that justifies any position you want to take. The system will absorb this. It always has, it always will, because the system is powered by American determination. Where there is a will there is a way.

Mean_Machine

04-04-2004, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by sinton66
Much ado about nothing. Every economic indicator is up, jobs will follow likewise. Go find some numbers about the independant businesses that have been started. I know at least six people that lost their job and went into business for themselves and are doing nicely. Makes me wish I had sometimes. I don't think you'll be able to sway our votes.

AAAAAAHHHHHHAAHAHHAAH.. now thats funny.. Every economic indicator is up?.. Now thats a riot!!.. HELLO!!!! where have you been????... under a rock???.. have you not heard the word RESECION???... Its all that has been spoken for about 2 years now.. .. you believe it all you want.. RECORD Deficit.. that is an economic indicator that is WAY up... By $500 Billion.. welcome to the 21st century!!!... where have you been??..

sinton66

04-04-2004, 08:06 PM

Ok, that's enough. The surplus you keep bragging about Clinton leaving was born from the highest personal income tax I've ever paid in my life( to the tune of an extra check besides my withholding in the amount from $1000 to $1500 yearly.). Bush simply returned that money to the people it belonged to. The record deficit was caused by 9/11. and the resulting war on terrorism. Bush or Clinton or anybody else would have to have been a magician to be able to predict that. You can spew this garbage all you want, but you are only spouting standard democratic clap-trap rhetoric. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care. But don't you DARE try to convince me you know more about this world than I do. I've lived a lot longer than you have. I've been through a dozen "recessions" and "recoveries". I've had at least a dozen different jobs. Everytime I lose one, I manage to find another, most of the time making more money than at the one I left. If a person is worth anything at all, like I said, where there's a will, there's a way.

SintonFan

04-04-2004, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Il tell you what.. dont believe me.. Just watch some of the political shows in the next few months and listen to the debates.. you will hear the same thing.. the white house does not even dispute that the Nation has lost nearly 3 Million Jobs in 3 years.. They just give a few excuses as to why and say its about to turn around.. so your disputing numbers even the white house says are right.
.
Wanna give me the link for all those lost jobs????
:)

Mean_Machine

04-04-2004, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Wanna give me the link for all those lost jobs????
:)
I have given several... Look back on the thread. then come back and give excuses as to why it is that bad or why the numbers are a lie.. LOL

Mean_Machine

04-04-2004, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by sinton66
Ok, that's enough. The surplus you keep bragging about Clinton leaving was born from the highest personal income tax I've ever paid in my life( to the tune of an extra check besides my withholding in the amount from $1000 to $1500 yearly.). Bush simply returned that money to the people it belonged to. The record deficit was caused by 9/11. and the resulting war on terrorism. Bush or Clinton or anybody else would have to have been a magician to be able to predict that. You can spew this garbage all you want, but you are only spouting standard democratic clap-trap rhetoric. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care. But don't you DARE try to convince me you know more about this world than I do. I've lived a lot longer than you have. I've been through a dozen "recessions" and "recoveries". I've had at least a dozen different jobs. Everytime I lose one, I manage to find another, most of the time making more money than at the one I left. If a person is worth anything at all, like I said, where there's a will, there's a way.

Bush Simply returned the money to the people It belonged to? NO it belonged to the US people to use as they need it ... Ok SO Since you are older and have been brainwashed as long as you have, you know the turth?? NO ,SORRY.. OK, So you say 9/11 caused the resecion.. well then why didnt he agree to hold off on the Taxcuts after it became evident we were at war and sliding into deficits?????Any Fiscaly responsible person would.. BUSH IS HISTORY.. YOU SCREWED UP PUTTING HIM IN.. BUT WE WILL FIX IT SOON ENOUGH.... SO JUST REAP IT!! YOU SOWED THE SEEDS SO FACE UP TO YOUR MISTAKES. BUSH IS AN IDIOT WITH THE WORSED ECONOMIC RECORD IN HISTORY ...$500 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT... 2.8 MILLION JOBS LOST AND COUNTING...

slpybear the bullfan

04-04-2004, 09:05 PM

Stock Market going back up, GDP going back up, PWI going back up, We are the 5th wealthiest nation PER CAPITA on the planet... and now have another consecutive month of job creation...

Let's just make this real easy for everyone...

If we are going to blame GW for everything, then lets do it...

GW comes into office as the economy is showing signs of a recession.

9/11 comes around (although I think we can all agree that GW didn't orchestrate that) and the next thing you the recession arrives.

Since then, we have prosecuted a direct war against terror in Afghanistan, (and continue to win that one). Then, we act on the intelligence of the time (see aforementioned post with Dem support for the War in Iraq) and prosecute a war in Iraq and continue to win. (I am sure others will compare it to a Vietnam... it is not even close).

Then, we have some tax rebates that result in the best tax returns ever for this poster (and others).

Now, we have all the signs (see above) showing the economy not just turning around, but gathering momentum. And the Star Telegram reported the best job creation since GW came into office during the month of March.

Okay... so if I get to "Blame" GW for all that... then .... OK. :)

A LOT of people are going to try and play both sides of the fence on this one. BUT... either the sitting President controls all of these secret buttons that make the economy tick and so the are credited with the success or failures... or they minimal impact and cannot be given much credit or failure.

It cannot be both... but I will bet a $100 bill that from the dems zero credit will be given to GW for any of the good economic things under his watch... while every single possible bad thing under the sun will be attributed to him. That is ridiculous. It is politics as usual.

Old Cardinal

04-04-2004, 09:09 PM

*Conservative believe in individual freedom and responsibility. Liberals believe in sacrificing individual freedom for socially desirable outcomes. Liberals believe that one of government's primary roles is social engineering.

*Conservatives believe in limited government. Liberals believe in intrusive government when required to achieve societal needs. (Exception: social-issues conservatives advocate government intrusion on matters of abortion, drugs and pornography.)

*Convervatives believe in free markets. Liberals believe in government controls and central planning.

*Conservatives believe that some problems have no solution, that they can only be mitigated at best. Liberals believe that most every problem has a government solution.

*Convervatives are concerned about the production of wealth. Liberals are concerned about the redistribution of it.

*Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity. Liberals believe in equality of outcome.

*Conservatives believe that human nature is what make us imperfectible. Liberals believe that human nature can be changed and prefected.

*Conservatives are nationalist. Liberals hope for world government.

*Conservatives believe in peace through strength. Liberals believe in peace through cooperation and good will.

SintonFan

04-04-2004, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
EVEN YOU are capable of understanding this here we go for some remedial math.. learn...

When bush Took office.. there were a TOTAL of 132.4 Million Jobs in america acording to the US Department of Labor and Bureau of Labor Statistics.. Right now the number of Jobs in America is 129.6 Million (According to The Us Department of Labor).

So to start the math lesson and to get the total Number of Jobs LOST BY BUSH you simply subtract the smaller number from the larger.. got it?? Here I will show you..

132.4
-129.6
= 2.8

thats 2.8 MILLION JOBS LOST WHILE BUSH HAS BEEN PRESIDENT.
understand now Jasperdog?? or are you special ed and need to go to content mastery for help?

Old cardinal... you are the prototypical redneck who thinks he is a republican but has not the sence to understand he realy should be a Democrat.. you the typical of the texas redneck who thinks half the people in the country are taking handouts and nobody works but you.. YOU MUST LIVE ON AN ISLAND.. The ECONOMY is in shambles.. the only indicator that is not terrible is unemployment rate and ive shown you according to economist how that can be misleading.. the stock market is down. Gas prices sky High, we ave a RECORD DEFICIT at over $500 BILLION, AND ITS GETTING WORS BY THE MONTH.. your not hearing all the talk shows talk about the "RECESION"????? HELLO!!!!! WAKE UP!!!! LOL

class dismissed.:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
.
Class has just started...:thinking:
This is from the bls.gov sight:

February 2002, Vol. 125, No. 2

U.S. labor market in 2001: economy enters a recession

David S. Langdon, Terence M. McMenamin and Thomas J. Krolik

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Nation’s longest postwar expansion ended in 2001, as the U.S. economy entered a recession in March 2001, after an unprecedented 10 years of growth.1 Manufacturing’s downturn started in late summer of 2000 and deepened in 2001, as businesses sharply reduced spending on machinery, computers, and other capital goods. However, retail sales and the housing market, both of which tend to be highly cyclical, held steady throughout most 2001. Consumers’ steadfastness did waver in the fourth quarter, as rising unemployment coupled with the psychological and economic effects of the tragic events of September 11 depressed consumer confidence.2

Nonfarm payroll employment fell 762,000, or 0.6 percent, in 2001. (See table 1.) Falling orders led factories to cut more than 1 million jobs from their payrolls. This retrenchment led to job losses in wholesale trade and transportation, and to a massive cutback in factories’ use of temporary help services. Construction and retail trade had small employment gains, as hiring early in the year barely offset declines over the rest the year. Job cutbacks in the travel industry intensified in the aftermath of September 11. In contrast, health services and public and private higher education stepped up hiring in 2001.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This excerpt is from an article published in the February 2002 issue of the Monthly Labor Review. The full text of the article is available in Adobe Acrobat's Portable Document Format (PDF). See How to view a PDF file for more information.

Read abstract Download full article in PDF (246K)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes

1 Recessions are determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. See details at http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/recessnov.html (visited January 2002).

2 On September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked three locations in the United States. Terrorist pilots hijacked commercial jetliners and crashed them into each of the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and into the Pentagon, in Arlington, Virginia. The hijacking attempt of a fourth jetliner was aborted in a field in Pennsylvania.

.
.
.
.
.
Now.... how quick do you think Bush can ruin our economy????
Answer that! But you won't of course.
Can he ruin it in 6 months? One year????
Seriously, did 9-11 have any impact on the economy? Of course it might have, but I want to hear it from you.

slpybear the bullfan

04-04-2004, 09:15 PM

Question:

There have been 2.8 MM job positions listed as "lost" since 2000 by the Labor Bureau.

The population is growing.

The number of participants in the workforce is growing.

And the unemployement rate is declining now.

If the number of jobs lost increases, but the number of workers increases, and the unemployment rate is declining...

...doesn't that mean that overall, as a percentage measure, more of the workforce is working today compared to a year ago?

Second Question:

Why is this a bad thing?

Third Question:

Do we blame Bush if this is a bad thing or do we ignore it if it is a good thing?

Fourth Question:

Do we just forget that more of our population is workign and focus on how many jobs were lost... irregardless of quantifying how many of those were lost due to voluntary terminations, retirements, leaving one job for another, etc.

Fifth Question:

Is is more fun just to find one numerical statistic that can be employed as shock value and keep the fires stoked and meanwhile ignore all of the good trends in the economy?

slpybear the bullfan

04-04-2004, 09:20 PM

On taxes...

I am in favor of a National Sales Tax. Those with expensive habits pay more, those who are scrimping or have economic assistance pay less.

And best of all... All of those American properties, goods, and services that are bought and paid for by foreigners.... Yup, they get to pay our bills.

Reward the savers...

sinton66

04-04-2004, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Bush Simply returned the money to the people It belonged to? NO it belonged to the US people to use as they need it ... Ok SO Since you are older and have been brainwashed as long as you have, you know the turth?? NO ,SORRY.. OK, So you say 9/11 caused the resecion.. well then why didnt he agree to hold off on the Taxcuts after it became evident we were at war and sliding into deficits?????Any Fiscaly responsible person would.. BUSH IS HISTORY.. YOU SCREWED UP PUTTING HIM IN.. BUT WE WILL FIX IT SOON ENOUGH.... SO JUST REAP IT!! YOU SOWED THE SEEDS SO FACE UP TO YOUR MISTAKES. BUSH IS AN IDIOT WITH THE WORSED ECONOMIC RECORD IN HISTORY ...$500 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT... 2.8 MILLION JOBS LOST AND COUNTING...

I got some news for you, Jack. I haven't ALWAYS been a Republican. I became one when I got old enough and wise enough to see through the Democratic line of B.S. Brain -washed? You silly liberals only WISH it was that simple.

BullsFan

04-04-2004, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Big Blue, you forgot to add that Man B(with four kids) would recieve food stamps to the tune $1200-2400 per year. That amounts to a tax rebate. If you subtract the medium of $1800 from $4000 then he's realistically paying only $2200. That comes to around 11% of what he is really paying. Don't forget WIC if the kids are young. Knock off another couple of percent. Making that kind of money, his children would be on CHIPS! Knock off another few percentage points(at least). You see these would be NET savings in comparison to the actual cost of food and healthcare. And since these benefits are provided by our government you have to subtract these benefits from what he pays in taxes.
.
Ohh, don't forget his children all have the chance to go to college. They can take out a student loan. I did.;)

Also, these kids would eat breakfast and lunch free at school every day. In addition to CHIPS for healthcare needs, the kids would receive eyecare and dental care either free or at greatly reduced costs. (Although the Texas leg. is about to take a big bite out of CHIPS.) And on that salary, chances are those kids could go to college either free or with a "forgivable loan", which could be paid off with so many years of working in a certain field. Of course, these kids would have to maintain good grades in high school and not get in too much trouble. That's a luxury that only the wealthy have, I guess--sending lazy kids with sucky grades to college.

Honestly, though, I'm probably way more moderate than a lot of people here. Working with children means I have a higher tolerance for social services than most conservatives, mainly because I see so many children in seriously dire straits. Do I want to see our country reduced entirely to a welfare state? No, not at all. But I also am tired of seeing children who don't have even their minimal needs provided for. Children shouldn't have to pay for the faults and errors of their parents.

JasperDog94

04-04-2004, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
On taxes...

I am in favor of a National Sales Tax. Those with expensive habits pay more, those who are scrimping or have economic assistance pay less.

And best of all... All of those American properties, goods, and services that are bought and paid for by foreigners.... Yup, they get to pay our bills.

Reward the savers...

I'm all for it!!!

JasperDog94

04-04-2004, 09:37 PM

MM,

How confident are you in your man Kerry?

SintonFan

04-04-2004, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by BullsFan
Also, these kids would eat breakfast and lunch free at school every day. In addition to CHIPS for healthcare needs, the kids would receive eyecare and dental care either free or at greatly reduced costs. (Although the Texas leg. is about to take a big bite out of CHIPS.) And on that salary, chances are those kids could go to college either free or with a "forgivable loan", which could be paid off with so many years of working in a certain field. Of course, these kids would have to maintain good grades in high school and not get in too much trouble. That's a luxury that only the wealthy have, I guess--sending lazy kids with sucky grades to college.

Honestly, though, I'm probably way more moderate than a lot of people here. Working with children means I have a higher tolerance for social services than most conservatives, mainly because I see so many children in seriously dire straits. Do I want to see our country reduced entirely to a welfare state? No, not at all. But I also am tired of seeing children who don't have even their minimal needs provided for. Children shouldn't have to pay for the faults and errors of their parents.
.
I sooo agree with you BullsFan. Unfortunately, when so many people believe that welfare, CHIPS, WIC, AFDC, disability, food stamps and so many other social programs are entitlements; parents don't have to do much anymore. Do they? ;)

BullsFan

04-04-2004, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
I sooo agree with you BullsFan. Unfortunately, when so many people believe that welfare, CHIPS, WIC, AFDC, disability, food stamps and so many other social programs are entitlements; parents don't have to do much anymore. Do they? ;)

You wanna talk about entitlement? I work evenings and weekends doing taxes during tax season, and you would not believe the sense of entitlement people have about their refunds. Especially people with EITC and child tax credits. I had someone last year who stopped working every year in August because he knew he'd not get as much EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) if he worked the entire year. Sure enough, he got several thousand back because his income was so very very low. He chose NOT to work so he'd get more free money. Then there was the lady who was offended that her unemployment didn't qualify her for EITC--I tried several times to explain that EITC comes only with EARNED income, and that unemployment was officially considered unearned income. I'm not sure she ever really believed me. As if I was personally keeping her from her well-deserved money. :rolleyes:

And why is it that I do taxes, btw? It's because I don't make enough teaching their children to support myself, so I do things like taxes and summer school and basically anything I can to earn extra $$$. It's enough to make you sick some days.

(All of which means nothing to my belief that children shouldn't pay for their parent's mistakes, btw. No matter how bad the parents are, every child deserves to be fed and clothed and given shelter. I'm just not sure what the best way to ensure that is...)

SintonFan

04-04-2004, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
But even darth vader saw the light at the end...:D
.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
How true????

SintonFan

04-04-2004, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
I have given several... Look back on the thread. then come back and give excuses as to why it is that bad or why the numbers are a lie.. LOL
.
Here is your first link:figures on bush job loss (http://www.afscme.org/publications/political/040112.htm) and what was on the home page:

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
HOMEPAGE | TODAY'S NEWS | CONTACT AFSCME | CALENDAR | SEARCH

Join AFSCME

About AFSCME

Employment Opportunities
Scholarships
AFSCME Resolutions
AFSCME Advantage
AFSCME Constitution
AFSCME Steward Handbook
AFSCME Graphics
AFSCME Financial Standards Code
The AFSCME Web
Council Directory
AFSCME Corrections United
United Nurses of America
AFSCME Retiree Program
AFSCME Women
Press Room

Privatization
Legislative Action
Political Action
Health & Safety
AFSCME LaborLinks
Publications
What's New
AFSCME en Español

John Kerry. Photographer: Anthony W. Lanier
AFSCME ENDORSES JOHN KERRY

The International Executive Board of the AFSCME unanimously endorsed Democratic candidate John Kerry for President. "Senator Kerry has a proven record of fighting for working families and a real plan to get this country back on track," said AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee. McEntee added that AFSCME will run its "most aggressive member mobilization program ever." More...

AFSCME 36TH INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION
AFSCME's 36th International Convention will take place in Anaheim, CA, June 21-25, 2004. Information on the Convention, travel, and hotels is now available online.

'WE'RE BACK!'
In Jacksonville, Fla., about 2,500 city employees came back to Council 79 after years of fruitless representation by a rival union. Following a heavy voter turnout, 61 percent of the ballots were certified: AFSCME Yes. The workers — represented by the another union since 2001 — went three years without a contract. In summer 2002, they started a campaign to return to the AFSCME fold.

EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT
Did you work in 2003? You may be eligible for the Earned Income Credit. If so, you’ll owe less in taxes and you could get cash back. Even if you don’t owe income tax, you can get the EIC! Find out more about this program and the Child Tax Credit and make sure your fellow members know about these programs with the 2004 Earned Income Tax Credit Outreach Kit from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The kit also contains promotional materials in Spanish and other foreign languages.

OPPOSE THE HOUSE AND SENATE BUDGET RESOLUTIONS
The Senate and the House have passed separate budget resolutions. Now, they must work out the differences between the two and come up with a final plan. Please contact your members of Congress and tell them to oppose these harmful budget plans. More...

SUPPORT THE HARKIN AMENDMENT ON OVERTIME
Senate Democrats are blocking Senate business unless there is a vote on the Harkin amendment to stop overtime take-aways. Write your Senators now and tell them to support the Harkin amendment. More...

Go to the Legislative Action for more AFSCME CyberActivist alerts.

PAYING FOR COLLEGE THE AFSCME WAY
The Union Plus Education Services program has a new unionized provider — American Education Services (AES), which employs approximately 1,000 AFSCME members. AES is one of the largest, full-service, financial aid and educational assistance organizations in the nation. More...

SCHOLARSHIPS
Applications are now being accepted for the Jerry Clark Memorial Scholarship. This scholarship is for children of AFSCME members who are political science majors and in their sophmore year of college. The application deadline is July 1. Details and application form...

• AFSCME Family Scholarship Winners 2004

TWO MARYLAND FIRSTS
After two years of negotiating with tight-fisted administrators, more than 3,100 employees — Council 92 members — from Maryland colleges have first contracts. In a coalition-bargaining effort among seven other campuses, office support and service and maintenance workers reached a tentative three-year contract. The deal offers a guaranteed 4.1 percent pay hike in the first year, and for the first time establishes grievance and leave policies.

STATE PATROL WORKERS VOTE WFSE
The 10-month effort by Washington State Patrol employees to win representation ended in victory on March 17 when they voted to make Washington Federation of State Employees (Council 28) their union.

Details and more AFSCME Organizing Victories...

2004 ASK A WORKING WOMAN SURVEY
Working women know the pressures of balancing work and family, the difficulties of making ends meet and the challenges of getting ahead. Sound off about your priorities for change by filling out the AFL-CIO's Ask a Working Woman survey.

AFSCME STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
Conference papers from AFSCME's Legislative Agenda for Protecting Public Services including individual state analyses and model legislation are now available online. More...

State Fiscal Crisis: AFSCME has developed a collection of materials to help AFSCME activists deal with the state fiscal crisis. More...

The endorsement at the top of this page is posted in full compliance with FEC regulations (11C.F.R. Sect.11 4.5(i)). It is paid for by the AFSCME PEOPLE Committee, with voluntary contributions from union members and their families, and is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

© 2004 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO.

EVENTS
Workers Memorial Day
April 28, 2004

36th International Convention
Anaheim, CA
June 21-25, 2004

NEW PUBLICATIONS
Domestic Violence: What Unions Can Do

The current editions of:

Public Employee
AFSCME In Motion
AFSCME Leader
AFSCME On the Job
ACU News
Information Highway
Our Voice
PrimeTIME
UNA Action
Public Pension Action News
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
WOW!
You had to quote a UNION site to get your statistics here! Very clever... not really. This is not the Labor Department's website. I see a half-truth(if that)...:rolleyes:

sinton66

04-04-2004, 10:23 PM

UH-OH, BUSTED!!!!

crzyjournalist03

04-04-2004, 10:27 PM

hey, does anybody else get a kick out of how the polls have a "total" down at the bottom??? As if the results aren't always going to add up to 100%....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

sinton66

04-04-2004, 10:30 PM

no, it's just you.:D :D :D j/k buddy!

SintonFan

04-04-2004, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
I knew you guys would try to explain it away some how..Unemployment figures are down because many people have simply quit looking for work. . must burn you up for me to be right about Job loss. WOW! over 2.5 million jobs lost on bush's watch. Record setting federal deficites. dont worry ,Kerrys coming.. in less than a year.
.
.
Prove it!

SintonFan

04-04-2004, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
I have given several... Look back on the thread. then come back and give excuses as to why it is that bad or why the numbers are a lie.. LOL
.
This link was given by RPM...unemployment rates for many years hehe (http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNU04000000&years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data)
.
Do you know this graphic just shows it takes some time for any presidents' economic policies to take root? Reaganomics was responsible for the 90's boom. Period. Talk to any honest Economist.:thinking: :rolleyes: :cool:

SintonFan

04-04-2004, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
I have given several... Look back on the thread. then come back and give excuses as to why it is that bad or why the numbers are a lie.. LOL
.
.
You're next link...
http://bbs.3adownlow.com/vb/showthread.php?postid=151606
.
.
Now that is hard to deny from Forbes. No doubt. Just how many jobs that were lost can be directly attributed to the Clinton administration? About 40% or greater, because this was a holdover from the recesion of the CLINTON years. How many can be directly attributed to the Bush administration? Who knows, because data takes time to interpret. DATA INTERPRETATION is never instantaneous! It takes time to understand every relevance and pertinance in relation to long-term figures
Your attack on Bush is just that. A personal attack with no true bearing. BTW, forbes.com is not a conservative website. Another half-truth from you.
:rolleyes:

JasperDog94

04-05-2004, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
MM,

How confident are you in your man Kerry?

MM,

You still there?

Mean_Machine

04-05-2004, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
.
You're next link...
http://bbs.3adownlow.com/vb/showthread.php?postid=151606
.
.
Now that is hard to deny from Forbes. No doubt. Just how many jobs that were lost can be directly attributed to the Clinton administration? About 40% or greater, because this was a holdover from the recesion of the CLINTON years. How many can be directly attributed to the Bush administration? Who knows, because data takes time to interpret. DATA INTERPRETATION is never instantaneous! It takes time to understand every relevance and pertinance in relation to long-term figures
Your attack on Bush is just that. A personal attack with no true bearing. BTW, forbes.com is not a conservative website. Another half-truth from you.
:rolleyes:

Well the Clinton Job Creation Numbers for his 8 years are at 23 Million Jobs.. Thats a Net Gain.. Not loss.... Are you saying Forbes is a Liberal website????? so if it is not conservative and it is not Liberal then it must be unbiased.. so the data is dependable... Saying Bush has presided over a 2.8 Million dollar Job loss and a $500 Billion dollar deficit is not a personal attackk they are facts acording to the government and even the white house.. Look keep sticking your head in the sand about bush.. when you pull your head out, Kerry will be there.

PS. If your saying that it takes a that long for Jobs to be created then Regans Job creation can be atributed to Carter?? didnt think so.. LOL

Mean_Machine

04-05-2004, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
.
Prove it!
I have proved It with So many Links and Stories form "LIBERAL" LOL publications like, CBS NEWS .COM, FORBES, AND ,USA TODAY but then you say they are lies or have some other excuse.. look back at all the links I have provided for proof..

Mean_Machine

04-05-2004, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Here is your first link:figures on bush job loss (http://www.afscme.org/publications/political/040112.htm) and what was on the home page:

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
HOMEPAGE | TODAY'S NEWS | CONTACT AFSCME | CALENDAR | SEARCH

Join AFSCME

About AFSCME

Employment Opportunities
Scholarships
AFSCME Resolutions
AFSCME Advantage
AFSCME Constitution
AFSCME Steward Handbook
AFSCME Graphics
AFSCME Financial Standards Code
The AFSCME Web
Council Directory
AFSCME Corrections United
United Nurses of America
AFSCME Retiree Program
AFSCME Women
Press Room

Privatization
Legislative Action
Political Action
Health & Safety
AFSCME LaborLinks
Publications
What's New
AFSCME en Español

John Kerry. Photographer: Anthony W. Lanier
AFSCME ENDORSES JOHN KERRY

The International Executive Board of the AFSCME unanimously endorsed Democratic candidate John Kerry for President. "Senator Kerry has a proven record of fighting for working families and a real plan to get this country back on track," said AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee. McEntee added that AFSCME will run its "most aggressive member mobilization program ever." More...

AFSCME 36TH INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION
AFSCME's 36th International Convention will take place in Anaheim, CA, June 21-25, 2004. Information on the Convention, travel, and hotels is now available online.

'WE'RE BACK!'
In Jacksonville, Fla., about 2,500 city employees came back to Council 79 after years of fruitless representation by a rival union. Following a heavy voter turnout, 61 percent of the ballots were certified: AFSCME Yes. The workers — represented by the another union since 2001 — went three years without a contract. In summer 2002, they started a campaign to return to the AFSCME fold.

EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT
Did you work in 2003? You may be eligible for the Earned Income Credit. If so, you’ll owe less in taxes and you could get cash back. Even if you don’t owe income tax, you can get the EIC! Find out more about this program and the Child Tax Credit and make sure your fellow members know about these programs with the 2004 Earned Income Tax Credit Outreach Kit from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The kit also contains promotional materials in Spanish and other foreign languages.

OPPOSE THE HOUSE AND SENATE BUDGET RESOLUTIONS
The Senate and the House have passed separate budget resolutions. Now, they must work out the differences between the two and come up with a final plan. Please contact your members of Congress and tell them to oppose these harmful budget plans. More...

SUPPORT THE HARKIN AMENDMENT ON OVERTIME
Senate Democrats are blocking Senate business unless there is a vote on the Harkin amendment to stop overtime take-aways. Write your Senators now and tell them to support the Harkin amendment. More...

Go to the Legislative Action for more AFSCME CyberActivist alerts.

PAYING FOR COLLEGE THE AFSCME WAY
The Union Plus Education Services program has a new unionized provider — American Education Services (AES), which employs approximately 1,000 AFSCME members. AES is one of the largest, full-service, financial aid and educational assistance organizations in the nation. More...

SCHOLARSHIPS
Applications are now being accepted for the Jerry Clark Memorial Scholarship. This scholarship is for children of AFSCME members who are political science majors and in their sophmore year of college. The application deadline is July 1. Details and application form...

• AFSCME Family Scholarship Winners 2004

TWO MARYLAND FIRSTS
After two years of negotiating with tight-fisted administrators, more than 3,100 employees — Council 92 members — from Maryland colleges have first contracts. In a coalition-bargaining effort among seven other campuses, office support and service and maintenance workers reached a tentative three-year contract. The deal offers a guaranteed 4.1 percent pay hike in the first year, and for the first time establishes grievance and leave policies.

STATE PATROL WORKERS VOTE WFSE
The 10-month effort by Washington State Patrol employees to win representation ended in victory on March 17 when they voted to make Washington Federation of State Employees (Council 28) their union.

Details and more AFSCME Organizing Victories...

2004 ASK A WORKING WOMAN SURVEY
Working women know the pressures of balancing work and family, the difficulties of making ends meet and the challenges of getting ahead. Sound off about your priorities for change by filling out the AFL-CIO's Ask a Working Woman survey.

AFSCME STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
Conference papers from AFSCME's Legislative Agenda for Protecting Public Services including individual state analyses and model legislation are now available online. More...

State Fiscal Crisis: AFSCME has developed a collection of materials to help AFSCME activists deal with the state fiscal crisis. More...

The endorsement at the top of this page is posted in full compliance with FEC regulations (11C.F.R. Sect.11 4.5(i)). It is paid for by the AFSCME PEOPLE Committee, with voluntary contributions from union members and their families, and is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

© 2004 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO.

EVENTS
Workers Memorial Day
April 28, 2004

36th International Convention
Anaheim, CA
June 21-25, 2004

NEW PUBLICATIONS
Domestic Violence: What Unions Can Do

The current editions of:

Public Employee
AFSCME In Motion
AFSCME Leader
AFSCME On the Job
ACU News
Information Highway
Our Voice
PrimeTIME
UNA Action
Public Pension Action News
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
WOW!
You had to quote a UNION site to get your statistics here! Very clever... not really. This is not the Labor Department's website. I see a half-truth(if that)...:rolleyes:
LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE YOU ARE REFERING TO... IT IS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SO THE GOVERNMENT SAYS ITS ACCURATE... YOUR BUSTED>!!!!! LOL STICK THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT! LOL

olddawggreen

04-05-2004, 10:08 AM

Its been really interesting following this thread over the last weeks or so, its definantly livened up the site for those that are interested in politics. But I can't help but think that of all the post and all the information and stats that have been posted here, it really won't make any difference when it comes time for everyone to vote. Mean_Machine will go for Kerry (heck, he most likely would have gone for Sharpston if thats who the Demo's had chosen to run for President), he will never admit that his man or his party has any flaws, has made any mistakes or has contributed to the problems that our country faces. He hates Bush and the Republican Party and will never, never admit that they have ever done a good job or done anything positive or right. Talking to M_M or any one like him will always be like talking to the wall.

How do I know? I know because my mother is a yellow dog democrat. Although she is not extreemly radical like M-M, (she dosn't resort to name calling when shes run out of ways to defend the Democratic party, like so many really radical Demo's do) she will condem the Republicans till she turns blue (or red as the case may be) in the face. It was really funny watching her try to justify some of the exploits of Clinton and his chronies during their stay at the White House. I have to admit it was fun to watch her squirm during the Monica disaster (Im sure she believed Monica and all those other women must have been Republicans in desquise just trying to frame poor Bill), but as all good die hard Demo's did, she continued to prop up her party. Now if Clinton had been named Bush or if he had been a Republican, Katy bar the door! My mother would have condemed him till hell freezes over for the same things that she was willing to gloss over for the Clinton Administration.

Now because I love my mother and in fact, she is really a good person, I try to avoid discussing politics with her as much as possible. The best I can do is cancel out her vote when my wife and I go to the polls (my Grand Mother used to do this while she was still living). I normaly vote for the person, so Im not opposed to voting for a Demo every now and then if I think they are the best person for the job. But it seems that in recent years the Demo's haven't really stood for anything except tearing down the Republican office holders. Thats not enough for me.

I really found it interesting to see how many Demo's were disapointed to see the news last week that the economy had improved as much as it has. And it just blows me away that there are people out there that would truely like to see things go bad for the US overseas just so they can scream and say I told you so. Something wrong with this whole picture.

So when all the dust has cleared from this thread, I don't expect much will be different, except to liven up the board while we wait for some 3A and 4A football to start!

JasperDog94

04-05-2004, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
MM,

How confident are you in your man Kerry?

Are you going to answer my question?

Mean_Machine

04-05-2004, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by olddawggreen
How do I know? I know because my mother is a yellow dog democrat. Although she is not extreemly radical like M-M, (she dosn't resort to name calling when shes run out of ways to defend the Democratic party, like so many really radical Demo's do) she will condem the Republicans till she turns blue (or red as the case may be) in the face.

A radical Democrat does not believe in the Death penalty as I do. A radical Democrat does not believe Abortion is wrong..
A Radical Democrat does not believe In a strong military.. SO you dont have any Idea of what your talking about.. Im a TEXAS DEMOCRAT.. That by nature makes me more moderate.. YOU are a TEXAS REPUBLICAN.. that makes you a RADICAL CONSERVATIVE.. BTW.. THE NAZIS IN GERMANY WERE ALSO RADICAL CONSERVATIVES. My views are more realistic to the US than the Texas Republicans who are extreemist. You guys would Do away with all taxes, then gripe about the roads and scholls going to pot..

JasperDog94

04-05-2004, 10:28 AM

I thought we already discussed name calling. You're associating the Nazis with Texas republicans. That is totally uncalled for.

BTW - Answer my question: How confident are you in your man Kerry?

Mean_Machine

04-05-2004, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I thought we already discussed name calling. You're associating the Nazis with Texas republicans. That is totally uncalled for.

BTW - Answer my question: How confident are you in your man Kerry? I said Like Nazis, the Texas republicans were also radical Conservatives.. If you dont like being like so conservative then change your views.. FYI. the Nazis were a conservative political party. Republicans are also a party as are the democrats.. refering to someones views being like anothers is not name calling.. you love to let loose with the term Liberals and Radicals.. that is as much name calling as comparing someones views to Facist Nazis using your standards . If you dont like being labled a Facist , radical, nazi or conservative then dont lable people as Liberal.. they may take offence at that as you do being compared to Facist.. talk about the pot calling teh kettle black.

Kerry will do a fine Job.. way better than Bush.. Cant do any worse. BTW. I dont like Sharpton.. I do like several Republicans.. the man who should be the republican candidate is from Arizona.. Mccain is the best the republicans have and they are not smart enough to realize it.

Cameronbystander

04-05-2004, 11:04 AM

Mean_Machine

You are not a Democrat. I would bet the house that you voted for Ross Perot. Your rantings are no longer worth debating since you have lowered yourself to John Kerry's level. SO.......

A question for everyone else! A person earlier talked about Yellow Dog Democrats. I have always been under the impression that that meant a person that would vote for anybody that was on the Democratic ballot. In my case I always said the my grandfather would have vote for Malcom X if he had run against Nixon.

But recently I heard a journalist refer to a Yellow Dog Democrat as a Democrat that would vote for all Democrats in a local election but would cross over and vote republician at the national level and for higher state offices. Opinions welcomed.

Mean_Machine

04-05-2004, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Cameronbystander
Mean_Machine

You are not a Democrat. I would bet the house that you voted for Ross Perot. Your rantings are no longer worth debating since you have lowered yourself to John Kerry's level. SO.......

A question for everyone else! A person earlier talked about Yellow Dog Democrats. I have always been under the impression that that meant a person that would vote for anybody that was on the Democratic ballot. In my case I always said the my grandfather would have vote for Malcom X if he had run against Nixon.

But recently I heard a journalist refer to a Yellow Dog Democrat as a Democrat that would vote for all Democrats in a local election but would cross over and vote republician at the national level and for higher state offices. Opinions welcomed. You just showed how ingnorant of me you are.. Perot was an idiotic billionare.

JasperDog94

04-05-2004, 11:19 AM

Hey MM,

How about a friendly bet on the outcome of the election involving your signature on 3adownlow.

How's this sound:

If Kerry wins my signature will read "George W. Bush was the worst president in US history."

If Bush wins, you change your signature to "George W Bush is the greatest president in US history."

The loser has to use that signature for a period of one month.

How's that sound?

Mean_Machine

04-05-2004, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Hey MM,

How about a friendly bet on the outcome of the election involving your signature on 3adownlow.

How's this sound:

If Kerry wins my signature will read "George W. Bush was the worst president in US history."

If Bush wins, you change your signature to "George W Bush is the greatest president in US history."

The loser has to use that signature for a period of one month.

How's that sound?
I am All over that... Remember you said that..

JasperDog94

04-05-2004, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
I am All over that... Remember you said that..

It's a deal then.

AggieJohn

04-05-2004, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
You just showed how ingnorant of me you are.. Perot was an idiotic billionare.

an idiotic billionare who got near 20% of the popular vote

sinton66

04-05-2004, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
I said Like Nazis, the Texas republicans were also radical Conservatives.. If you dont like being like so conservative then change your views.. FYI. the Nazis were a conservative political party. Republicans are also a party as are the democrats.. refering to someones views being like anothers is not name calling.. you love to let loose with the term Liberals and Radicals.. that is as much name calling as comparing someones views to Facist Nazis using your standards . If you dont like being labled a Facist , radical, nazi or conservative then dont lable people as Liberal.. they may take offence at that as you do being compared to Facist.. talk about the pot calling teh kettle black.

Kerry will do a fine Job.. way better than Bush.. Cant do any worse. BTW. I dont like Sharpton.. I do like several Republicans.. the man who should be the republican candidate is from Arizona.. Mccain is the best the republicans have and they are not smart enough to realize it.

Big difference here , me bucko. We didn't call you a left wing COMMUNIST, just a liberal. You didn't JUST call us conservatives, you compared us to Nazi's. BIG DIFFERENCE, and it BETTER be the last time that happens. You call ME a Nazi and you will go elsewhere to do your posting. Consider that fair warning.

Mean_Machine

04-05-2004, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by sinton66
Big difference here , me bucko. We didn't call you a left wing COMMUNIST, just a liberal. You didn't JUST call us conservatives, you compared us to Nazi's. BIG DIFFERENCE, and it BETTER be the last time that happens. You call ME a Nazi and you will go elsewhere to do your posting. Consider that fair warning. Here me BUCKO! I CHANLENGE YOU TO FIND WHERE I CALLED ANYONE A NAZI! SHOW IT TO ME. SHOW ME WHERE I NAMED ANYONE AS A NAZI. YOU CANT. DONT CAL ME A LIBERAL . IM NOT. I TAKE OFFENCE TO IT. SO YOU WATCH IT. I NEVER NAMED ANYONE AS A FACIST OR NAZI. READ CAREFULY. BUT I WAS CALLED A RADICAL LIBERAL. ... LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR>> I TAKE OFFENCE TO IT.... WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS THE FACT THAT YOU WANT TO REFER TO MY VIEWS AS YOU WISH BUT WANT TO CENSOR MINE....I HAVE GIVEN FACTS SUPPORTED BUY LINKS TO RESPECTED NEWS ORGAINZATIONS AND BEEN CALLED A LIAR... AND A RADICAL LIBERAL.... I CONSIDER THAT AN INSULT. SO DONT DISH IT IF YOU DONT WANT ANY. SO BEING A MODERATOR MAKES IT OK TO INSULT ME AND CALL ME NAMES BUT IT MAKES YOU IMUNE???? I SEE HOW IT IS NOW.. IS THIS A REPUBLICAN ONLY SITE?? IF IT IS YOU SHOULD LET PEOPLE IN ON IT WHEN THEY REGISTER...

olddawggreen

04-05-2004, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
A radical Democrat does not believe in the Death penalty as I do. A radical Democrat does not believe Abortion is wrong..
A Radical Democrat does not believe In a strong military.. SO you dont have any Idea of what your talking about.. Im a TEXAS DEMOCRAT.. That by nature makes me more moderate.. YOU are a TEXAS REPUBLICAN.. that makes you a RADICAL CONSERVATIVE.. BTW.. THE NAZIS IN GERMANY WERE ALSO RADICAL CONSERVATIVES. My views are more realistic to the US than the Texas Republicans who are extreemist. You guys would Do away with all taxes, then gripe about the roads and scholls going to pot..

M_M, I know this may seem odd to you, but I had numerous family members that fought the Nazis in WWII and some of them didn't come home. The ones that did come home became very plugged in to Texas politics, becoming involved with the political process and the Democratic Party on a level that put them on a first name basis with many of the high "Democratic" office holders for a number of decades. Its interesting that almost all of them eventually started voting for Republican candidates after the "Carter Years" . It was about that time that so many of us relized what a mess the Democratic party had become.

One thing I know for sure is that you are being extreemly insulting to a whole generation of Texans and Americans who sacrificed so much to combat the Nazis by comparing The Republican Party to the Nazi Party. I know I find your statements very insulting. I stand by what I said about you, Ive seen people like you all my life, with you there is no comprimise, its your way or no way. You appear to be a very angry person, I expect that you will always have a twisted view of reality. You have continued to call people insulting names time after time.

Your are a shining example of what many people have found wrong with the Democratic Party and many of those more vocal members of that party. I expect that you are probably winning many more converts to the Republican Party with your rantings than you are to the Democratic Party. You like to talk about the Nazis a lot. Well there is one thing I know about the Nazis, There was no comprimise with in their party, it was their way or now way, Hmmmm
:eek: :eek:

Mean_Machine

04-05-2004, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by olddawggreen
. You like to talk about the Nazis a lot. Well there is one thing I know about the Nazis, There was no comprimise with in their party, it was their way or now way, Hmmmm
:eek: :eek:

Yes, and the Nazis Chanpioned Censorship. There was No freedom of speech and view contrary to thier own were not alowed. If you didnt agree with thier view they got rid of you.. they were very conservative in thier views.

Find where I called anyone a Nazi. Or called anyone a Facist.. please do that for me.. I can find many times on here where I was out right called a Liberal and a radical. but thats ok???

olddawggreen

04-05-2004, 05:47 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mean_Machine
A radical Democrat does not believe in the Death penalty as I do. A radical Democrat does not believe Abortion is wrong..
A Radical Democrat does not believe In a strong military.. SO you dont have any Idea of what your talking about.. Im a TEXAS DEMOCRAT.. That by nature makes me more moderate.. YOU are a TEXAS REPUBLICAN.. that makes you a RADICAL CONSERVATIVE.. BTW.. THE NAZIS IN GERMANY WERE ALSO RADICAL CONSERVATIVES. My views are more realistic to the US than the Texas Republicans who are extreemist. You guys would Do away with all taxes, then gripe about the roads and scholls going to pot.. [/QUOTE

I didn't have to go far, sure your playing your little word games, but you know what you meant by making your comparison about Texas Republicans and German Nazis.

sinton66

04-05-2004, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Yes, and the Nazis Chanpioned Censorship. There was No freedom of speech and view contrary to thier own were not alowed. If you didnt agree with thier view they got rid of you.. they were very conservative in thier views.

Find where I called anyone a Nazi. Or called anyone a Facist.. please do that for me.. I can find many times on here where I was out right called a Liberal and a radical. but thats ok???

MM you ARE calling people NAZI's by inferance. And I'm TELLING you for the last time to stop it. Find a less inflammatory way to make your point or stop it. NOTE: I did NOT say stop posting your viewpoints. I did NOT say stop posting your links. I did NOT say stop posting your "proof". I did NOT say stop calling the president names. You're playing a DANGEROUS game with your one-upsmanship. As I said, there is a big difference between anyone calling you a liberal and you even "hinting" some on here are Nazi's. Don't p*ss on my leg and try to convince me it's raining. I know EXACTLY what you are doing. You know very well I am not censoring your views. I will however send you packing if you don't knock it off with the Nazi bit.

It's the SIZE of the splash, friend. They're throwing stones, and you're tossing grenades.

Mean_Machine

04-05-2004, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by sinton66
MM you ARE calling people NAZI's by inferance. And I'm TELLING you for the last time to stop it. Find a less inflammatory way to make your point or stop it. NOTE: I did NOT say stop posting your viewpoints. I did NOT say stop posting your links. I did NOT say stop posting your "proof". I did NOT say stop calling the president names. You're playing a DANGEROUS game with your one-upsmanship. As I said, there is a big difference between anyone calling you a liberal and you even "hinting" some on here are Nazi's. Don't p*ss on my leg and try to convince me it's raining. I know EXACTLY what you are doing. You know very well I am not censoring your views. I will however send you packing if you don't knock it off with the Nazi bit.

It's the SIZE of the splash, friend. They're throwing stones, and you're tossing grenades. Dont like the Nazi word Used?? I dont like the word radical or liberal words used. . send me packing.. it will prove my point I mad in another post. but stop mouthing about it and do it. It will show Im right.

sinton66

04-05-2004, 09:44 PM

Prove what ever you want in another post. You're not doing yourself any favors by questioning my integrity either. I think most posters on here will agree I'm showing patience with you. Find 3 that disagree with that statement and I'll drop it.

BullsFan

04-05-2004, 10:30 PM

Just for the record, I think it's pretty disingenuous to compare a broad group of people more than once with Nazis and then ask someone to prove you called them that. There's only one reason to bring up Nazis, and that's to be as insulting and inflammatory as possible. I can only assume at this point that you're trying to start trouble.

Originally posted by Cameronbystander
A question for everyone else! A person earlier talked about Yellow Dog Democrats. I have always been under the impression that that meant a person that would vote for anybody that was on the Democratic ballot. In my case I always said the my grandfather would have vote for Malcom X if he had run against Nixon.

But recently I heard a journalist refer to a Yellow Dog Democrat as a Democrat that would vote for all Democrats in a local election but would cross over and vote republician at the national level and for higher state offices. Opinions welcomed.

I actually thought "Yellow Dog" referred to the Southern Democrats as a voting block, and I thought the term originated sometime during the 50s. But my memories of high school government class are somewhat dim, so I won't comment further.

I do know what your journalist was referring to, though, and that's actually a "Blue Dog" Democrat. My own legislator, Stenholm, is a Blue Dog Democrat, which means he is a member of the DNC but he actually votes moderate and/or conservative. You can find out about them here (http://baronhill.house.gov/bluedogs/what_bluedog.htm). And actually, in looking at that site I just read that the term "Yellow Dog" comes from a long history of Southern Democrats who would vote for a yellow dog if it were on the Democratic ticket.

So hey--there's your history lesson for today. ;)