Early Presidential Poll

[spiveyrat]

nm

[sinton66]

Easy decision for me.;)

[AggieJohn]

Bush, because he has a better look than lurch

[poncho]

Originally posted by sinton66
Easy decision for me.;)
Hey!!! We agree. Hello Sinton66!!

[spiveyrat]

OOPS! Looks like Old Tiger and I were on the same wavelength... and he beat me to the post. Sorry for the "duplicate" poll. :doh:

[bearkatdad]

Hmmm...loooks like the 'someone' may not even get a vote?

[AggieJohn]

Originally posted by bearkatdad
Hmmm...loooks like the 'someone' may not even get a vote?


someone doesn't deserve it either

[Bandera YaYa]

Originally posted by explayer2001
Bush, because he has a better look than lurch Now , that's funny!!!!!! Yeah, I'm not buying into Kerry's whole thing.....I don't trust him at all. He says he's against something, but darn, if he didn't vote for it earlier!!! He'll be another Bill Clinton in the White house.......thinks he's a lady killer!! :rolleyes:

[Old Cardinal]

I am not surprised to see Bush in the lead....Did you see the pictures of Jane Fonda and John Kerry appearing together on the 1970s anti-war rallies? This guy has taken opposite views on every important issue and many trivial issues as well. If I were running against this man I would just have 5 seconds of him stating his "views"; followed by 5 more seconds of him stating a totally opposite view....That scanerio could go on for 4 minutes...He is a lizard-he can turn green are brown according to the environment he finds himself in each moment!

[AggieJohn]

like i think he will totally stay close with bush, because the only thing he ever stands up for is getting bush out of office...he'll do okay until they debate and bush cremes him by asking him how he stand on anything...

[AggieJohn]

i am liking the results of this poll more and more

[olddawggreen]

The fact is, Republicans will vote for Bush and Democrats will vote for Kerry, with the exception of those really far out liberals who will vote for Ralph "Save the Earth, Damn the Corporations" Nader.
I think the country is pretty split, the demos hate Bush as much as the Republicans hated Clinton. I think its really going to come down to who turns out the most voters.

[SintonFan]

Kerry's vote record will hopefully be his undoing. The guy has been tracked as the most liberal Senator just by his voting record in the Senate. I just hope most people will listen to reason.:(

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

It doesn't matter who gets the most votes, Al Gore proved that last year by winning the popular vote, but losing by that piece-or-you-know-what Electorial College. A Republican led Supreme Court mandate didn't help his cause either....Another thing, how come Bush hasn't got rid of the Electorial College that he promised to do when he was running against Gore? I guess that if it wins you an election, then he's going to keep it. That may be the only reason he'll win.

[JasperDog94]

Big Blue, you're forgetting one important thing...Bush won every possible recount of the ballots. Even those "hanging chads".

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

No he didn't, they stopped halfway through, and Gore was leading when they stopped. We can argue about this for hours, the main point I'm trying to make is that I'm just tired of the Electorial College. If this is a democracy, and the people do in fact rule, then why doesn't the majority make the decision? I don't like the Electorial College because I simple don't think that it is fair.

[JasperDog94]

After all was said and done, Bush won every recount. They did complete the recount, but it never made the national "liberal" media. Now if Gore had won the unofficial recount, that's all you would have heard about.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
It doesn't matter who gets the most votes, Al Gore proved that last year by winning the popular vote, but losing by that piece-or-you-know-what Electorial College. A Republican led Supreme Court mandate didn't help his cause either....Another thing, how come Bush hasn't got rid of the Electorial College that he promised to do when he was running against Gore? I guess that if it wins you an election, then he's going to keep it. That may be the only reason he'll win.
.
Big Blue, the canidate made a promise during elections? Sorry BBDE, you should look up Clintons' promises first. The fact is, the electorial college works because it represents the states for the majority. It is a great system and only bemoaned by the ones who lose.
Do you deny there is a liberal bias in the major networks in their evening news(ABC, NBC, CBS)?
:(

[Old Tiger]

:clap: Go John Kerry :clap:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Old Tiger
:clap: Go John Kerry :clap:
.
Ehh?
Check your PM...lol

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
No he didn't, they stopped halfway through, and Gore was leading when they stopped. We can argue about this for hours, the main point I'm trying to make is that I'm just tired of the Electorial College. If this is a democracy, and the people do in fact rule, then why doesn't the majority make the decision? I don't like the Electorial College because I simple don't think that it is fair.

Halfway through? Yeah, halfway through the 2nd or 3rd recount of the same ballots that couldn't be made to come out in Gore's favor.

There were no promises to "get rid" of the electoral college.

[AggieJohn]

my personal spin on the elections is that bush will definately win, and the 3rd wheel i guess you could say would be nader, conservatives will vote bush of course, but like 2000 the national dem's will be tossed between kerry and nader......and i bet more lib's go to nader this election

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
It doesn't matter who gets the most votes, Al Gore proved that last year by winning the popular vote, but losing by that piece-or-you-know-what Electorial College. A Republican led Supreme Court mandate didn't help his cause either....Another thing, how come Bush hasn't got rid of the Electorial College that he promised to do when he was running against Gore? I guess that if it wins you an election, then he's going to keep it. That may be the only reason he'll win.

You fail to see the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in the establishment of the Electoral College. You lack an appreciation of the nuance in this matter. Without the Electoral College the United States becomes just one big pool of voters with the strength of determining policy residing in the main population centers. This means that the interests of the minority, like farmers in Kansas or ranchers in Texas are held hostage to the folks in New York and Los Angeles. Do you think for a minute that candidates would venture out to Iowa, Oklahoma or West Texas to campaign on local issues if the Electoral College didn't exist? Think about it. As Jonah Goldberg from NRO says "Pure Democracy is when the majority has the power to pee in the cornflacks of the minority". That is what would happen if we let the Left Coast and Northeastern liberal establishment decide every election. Thank God for the wisdom of our forefathers in this regard and shame on you for getting this far in your education and failing to see the elegance and importance of the Electoral College. Don't buy into this liberal establishment argument and give away your voice in the electoral process.:thinking:

[HighSchool Fan]

Thank you for explaining why the Electoral College is so important to all of America. Take a look at who won what in the last election. http://www.fraudfactor.com/ffhumor13.html

[spiveyrat]

That map is hard to refute.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
You fail to see the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in the establishment of the Electoral College. You lack an appreciation of the nuance in this matter. Without the Electoral College the United States becomes just one big pool of voters with the strength of determining policy residing in the main population centers. This means that the interests of the minority, like farmers in Kansas or ranchers in Texas are held hostage to the folks in New York and Los Angeles. Do you think for a minute that candidates would venture out to Iowa, Oklahoma or West Texas to campaign on local issues if the Electoral College didn't exist? Think about it. As Jonah Goldberg from NRO says "Pure Democracy is when the majority has the power to pee in the cornflacks of the minority". That is what would happen if we let the Left Coast and Northeastern liberal establishment decide every election. Thank God for the wisdom of our forefathers in this regard and shame on you for getting this far in your education and failing to see the elegance and importance of the Electoral College. Don't buy into this liberal establishment argument and give away your voice in the electoral process.:thinking:

:clap:
Good explanation, I do have a better understanding of the electorial college now and I understand exactly what you said. What is going to be the downfall of our democracy as we know it is going to be that roughly 6% of the registered voters in the United States vote. People need to step it up and vote and excercise our democratic rights.

[fred grunden]

And a whole lot of Florida military vote did not get counted because the military didn't post mark it with a date. Bush probably had a high percentage of that vote.

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
:clap:
Good explanation, I do have a better understanding of the electorial college now and I understand exactly what you said. What is going to be the downfall of our democracy as we know it is going to be that roughly 6% of the registered voters in the United States vote. People need to step it up and vote and excercise our democratic rights.

Well great, I'm delighted that you found my little treatise on the Electoral College enlightening. You seem to have an open mind, a real asset in the pursuit of knowledge. I agree that too few people vote, yet I think that it is better for uninformed, indifferent and just plain ignorant folks to stay home on election day rather than influence public policy in a haphazard or unwise way. It is the responsibility of free people in democratic societies to exercise deligence and judgement along with the vote.:thinking:

[slpybear the bullfan]

Originally posted by Pudlugger
Well great, I'm delighted that you found my little treatise on the Electoral College enlightening. You seem to have an open mind, a real asset in the pursuit of knowledge. I agree that too few people vote, yet I think that it is better for uninformed, indifferent and just plain ignorant folks to stay home on election day rather than influence public policy in a haphazard or unwise way. It is the responsibility of free people in democratic societies to exercise deligence and judgement along with the vote.:thinking:

Amen, pudlugger, amen...

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Yeah, I agree

[Chief Woodman]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
No he didn't, they stopped halfway through, and Gore was leading when they stopped. We can argue about this for hours, the main point I'm trying to make is that I'm just tired of the Electorial College. If this is a democracy, and the people do in fact rule, then why doesn't the majority make the decision? I don't like the Electorial College because I simple don't think that it is fair.

Bill Clinton NEVER had a majority of the votes, yet he was in office twice. As for "If this is a democracy...." The answer is the USA is NOT a Democarcy, it is a republic......Remember these words- "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". (Note it is not to the DEMOCRACY for which it stands).

This should poiint out to you big blue that some of your thinking is based upon what you hear to be the truth, rather than looking for your self. Just like many in America think that the constitution says "Separation of church and state", which it does not. Listen to a little wisdom- before you believe what you hear on TV, remember that those who are giving you the "News" are deciding for you what is news and what is not. They also tend to state falsehood so much that it is believed to be true when in fact is is not. This is part of the "Dumbing down" of America.

"Christians" sometimes do the same thing. They belive what someone tells them to be true without reading the Bible for themselves. That is one reason why the Bible tells us to "Study to show thyself approved". If you read the Bible or the Constitution for yourself, it will be easier for you to spot the fraud when it is presented.

Sort of like "Bush's tax break for the wealthy". When you look deeper you see that that staement is full of misleading propaganda. Of course the "wealthy" get a bigger tax break...it is their money that we are taking. The poor are not getting as much of a break because in some cases THEY PAY NO TAX TO BEGIN WITH.

Here is food for thought. According to the 2000 world almanac the average world wide income per person is just under $900.00 dollars a year. The average per person income in the USA is over $28,000.00 per year. Thus, if a family of 4 makes $4,000.00 dollars a year they are richer than 50% of the people in the world. WE are the rich, not the poor. So to point fingers at the super wealthy and demand redistribution of wealth or high taxes on them and not on us is somewhat hypocritical. IMHO.

[Sans Couth]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
No he didn't, they stopped halfway through, and Gore was leading when they stopped. We can argue about this for hours, the main point I'm trying to make is that I'm just tired of the Electorial College. If this is a democracy, and the people do in fact rule, then why doesn't the majority make the decision? I don't like the Electorial College because I simple don't think that it is fair.

How old were you when the had the recount? Are you sure you were not watching rugrats cartoons instead of CNN?:p

[Old Tiger]

I was watching Spongebob and reruns of Barney...j/k

[KaktusJack]

Blue Boy Magazine defensive tight end that same ol tired line about the 2000 election is been a dead horse for some time now. Get real and original .

[Old Cardinal]

After reading BBDE's statements, it really scares me that CNN (Communist news network) puts out such lies for young ears to hear....It is a real shame! I hope you will join me in not buying the products of their frequent ads. Maybe companies will get the idea that if they advertise on the Liberal TV stations, they will lose a lot of their customers. BBDE--- Clinton and his flameing liberals topped by Kerry (the other playboy) had left our military in shambles. You can bet that 90+% of all military voters and their famlies will again vote Republican. Because of the block vote for the Republican party is why Hillary Clinton has tried to pull tricks to stop the overseas "People in Uniform" from getting their votes to count. What a bunch of sleeze-balls!

[AggieJohn]

Originally posted by Old Cardinal
Clinton and his flameing liberals topped by Kerry (the other playboy)


i know he's not even in office yet and we have reports of affairs....wah!..i guess these democrats like to play for they're minority

[CatWoman]

I saw an interesting news report on Kerry last night during his "protest days" and now that he wants to be President, he has ads of when he was in the military. As far as the talk of his womanizing, I personally can't imagine any woman finding him remotely attractive. IMHO

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by CatWoman
I saw an interesting news report on Kerry last night during his "protest days" and now that he wants to be President, he has ads of when he was in the military. As far as the talk of his womanizing, I personally can't imagine any woman finding him remotely attractive. IMHO

My sentiment's EXACTLY!!!!

Jay Leno said something about him looking like Thomas Jefferson on the $20 dollar bill....I had to go look and......HE DOES!!!!

http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_SM/0019-0311-1214-3119_SM.jpg

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Old Cardinal
CNN (Communist news network)
I think you've got it all wrong. CNN = Crescent News Network.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Ya'll do really great on here to try to talk down upon a 16 year old who only tries to defend himself from people like ya'll who try to say that all the democrats are stupid, demolished the country, wouldn't defend themselves, and whatever else. Why don't ya'll talk to somebody who really knows politics, because I know quite a bit, but I don't have the answer to everything and ya'll would be embarrassed if ya'll actually had to come face to face with somebody who could prove every little thing you have said is wrong, I simply don't have the time nor the will to look up every little "fact" that you have put on the table. I've put feasible facts right in front of ya'll, some tied into opinions, and ya'll, just like the typical republican, overlook them and proceed ahead because ya'll are always right....This is exactly why I am glad that I am not a republican. You accuse me of being taught how to think and think that I sit in front of the television all day and watch CNN, well, sorry to disappoint so many of you, who by the way are always right, I don't. Republicans try to deny that as a country the United States of America prospered under the reign of Bill Clinton. I'm sorry that he would rather settle a dispute diplomatically and save the lives of many people rather than go into a country, rip it apart, only to have to turn around and rebuild it at the cost of trillions of dollars to us. But what do I know, I'm just a democrat, and ya'll are always right. Ya'll were so quick to congratulate slpybear the bullfan for presenting facts and contesting what I have stated, but what have ya'll provided? Nothing, just speculation and slander. You also say that Hillary Clinton is trying to block the overseas votes. I hardly believe that seeing as how it was the Republican majority Supreme Court that did that last time. Why do we even argue about politics on here anways?

[KaktusJack]

The funniest one I heard is "Put Jay Leno's head in a vice and squeeze real hard and he will come out looking like John Kerry".

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Republicans try to deny that as a country the United States of America prospered under the reign of Bill Clinton.
A lot of that growth came from the "trickle down economics" that you don't agree with. Companies made more money, invested in technology, and thus the resulting surge in the economy. Democrats would rather give out a handout that's gone the next week. Republicans are more interested in long term growth. That's what "trickle down economics" is all about.

The more you give people for not working, the more people don't want to work. The biggest downside to all of this is the fact that when you give somebody something for nothing, you take away their self worth. If they can sit at home and make more money than getting a job, then where's the incentive? We should invest more in job training and day cares for people on welfare.

Sorry...I went off on a tangent, but it's true.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

If the democrats gave out so many hand outs, then why as a country did we experience the biggest budget surplus that we've ever had?

[HighSchool Fan]

Because the Republicans ended the cold war and Clinton didn't think that we needed as big a military and quit spending money for the military. The extra money went to the surplus. Bill Clinton did not give the middle class 1 tax break, isn't that what democrats run on, helping the middle class. All Clinton did was promote affirmative action. He was gutless when it came to terriost. He cowarded out of Somalia when we lost 18 service men. That made terriost belive that America was a paper tiger. Bill Clinton will go down as the worst president in American history.

[Cameronbystander]

Because except for blips such as a tax rebate, the changes made by any president (and more specifically the Congress working with him), are not felt until many months after they are put into operation. Most of the large gains during the Clinton years were the result of Republician changes made during the Regan and 1st Bush administration.

The changes made by Clinton were not in effect until late in his presidency and they carried over into the 2nd Bush administration. That is why GW's term started under a recession.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Cameronbystander
the changes made by any president (and more specifically the Congress working with him), are not felt until many months after they are put into operation.
And with "trickle down economics" it's just that. It takes awhile for the benefits to kick in. But when they do, they have a tendency to stay around for awhile.

[AggieJohn]

I think you got exactly two things right on your last post buddy:




Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END ...........proceed ahead because ya'll are always right....I'm just a democrat, and ya'll are always right

[Old Cardinal]

"Republican majority Supreme Court that did that last time." That, Big Blue, has to be the dumbest statement ever made in the history of this message board! Do you really think the Supreme Court instead of the Liberal Democrats tried to stop our men and women in uniform from voting? That is insane, the military is voting as a block against the Demos because the Demos never gave a raise throughout Clinton's reign and they were treated like step-children and attempts were made to stop their votes from being counted!... When Kerry was cuddled up with Jane Fonda at the anti-war rallies he lost the vote of the Vietnam Vets and most all other vets without any chance of redemption. I would look for the Armed Forces to be out at the polls in force and also knocking doors to help Geo. W. Bush get elected. Kerry sold them out by voting for wars and then voting AGAINST EVERY CONGRESSIONAL BILL to give them workable equipment to respond with.

[JasperDog94]

...here's your sling-shot. Now go and kill that sniper...

[Old Cardinal]

Now that funny, I love that New Caney wit!

[Sans Couth]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Ya'll do really great on here to try to talk down upon a 16 year old who only tries to defend himself from people like ya'll who try to say that all the democrats are stupid, demolished the country, wouldn't defend themselves, and whatever else. Why don't ya'll talk to somebody who really knows politics, because I know quite a bit, but I don't have the answer to everything and ya'll would be embarrassed if ya'll actually had to come face to face with somebody who could prove every little thing you have said is wrong, I simply don't have the time nor the will to look up every little "fact" that you have put on the table. I've put feasible facts right in front of ya'll, some tied into opinions, and ya'll, just like the typical republican, overlook them and proceed ahead because ya'll are always right....This is exactly why I am glad that I am not a republican. You accuse me of being taught how to think and think that I sit in front of the television all day and watch CNN, well, sorry to disappoint so many of you, who by the way are always right, I don't. Republicans try to deny that as a country the United States of America prospered under the reign of Bill Clinton. I'm sorry that he would rather settle a dispute diplomatically and save the lives of many people rather than go into a country, rip it apart, only to have to turn around and rebuild it at the cost of trillions of dollars to us. But what do I know, I'm just a democrat, and ya'll are always right. Ya'll were so quick to congratulate slpybear the bullfan for presenting facts and contesting what I have stated, but what have ya'll provided? Nothing, just speculation and slander. You also say that Hillary Clinton is trying to block the overseas votes. I hardly believe that seeing as how it was the Republican majority Supreme Court that did that last time. Why do we even argue about politics on here anways?

I went and did some searching. If I am not mistaken, you are one of the first posters who introduced political argument on this board.

Also, I find it a little troubling that your sentence structure at some times when you are just talking about sports, the weather, and defending yourself, is not in the same zipcode as your writing skills when you speak of politics. I am afraid that I must question you in this matter, as it seems to me that someone else is doing your speaking , or at least, your thinking when the subject changes.

P.S.

I would like you to define "surplus" when it is used in the context of your last post.

I am afraid that you have been spoon fed the proverbial "fuzzy math" on this one. There is no such animal as a "surplus" when it comes to programs like social security. How can you have a surplus when Grandpa Walker is spending the money that the 19 year old kid that works at the grocery store sends in each month? There is only a "surplus" when Grandpa Walker put in more than he is taking out, which we all know is horsepooky. Grandpa walker is taking out each month what he put in in 6 years when the program was invented. If Grandpa lives longer than 2 years after he retires, he is spending juniors money, not his. Please tell me how that is a "surplus".

Thanks

[AggieJohn]

RACK'EM

[Mustang '89]

Originally posted by Old Cardinal
.....the military is voting as a block against the Demos because the Demos never gave a raise throughout Clinton's reign and they were treated like step-children and attempts were made to stop their votes from being counted!...

Are you talking about the military getting a raise? I spent 10 years in the Army (89-99) and we got a raise every year. Or are you saying Clinton didn't support it?

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
And with "trickle down economics" it's just that. It takes awhile for the benefits to kick in. But when they do, they have a tendency to stay around for awhile.

Trickle down economics has been proven not to work! You cant cut taxes ( mostly on the rich ) and keep spending money and expect to pay the countries bills. Its like you quiting your full time job to take a part time job ( less money) and then decide to go borrow money for a new car. Then be stupid enough to think that your bills are going to be paid. Trickle down Economics have not worked. when Regan took office there was a $700 billion debt. By the time George Bush Sr was gone there was $4 TRILLION in debt. oh yeah right! trikle down economics works for the wealthy. and we pay for it.

I have news for all you ultra conservatives out there. Bush is history! Why? (1) We have lost more Jobs on his watch that any other president since The Great Depresion...(2) the economy is not growing like it should. (3) He is more intrested in trumping up a war against Iraq than the real terroist.( what he did would be like President Roosevelt decaring war on and invading Mexico in response to the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor!) (4) Heck ! in the last election he recieved fewer votes than Gore did ( 500,000 fewer nation wide). I dont make enough money for it to pay for me to vote for bush and neither does 95% of the people in this country!

Get ready for him because Kerry will be the next president. like it or not regardless of any poll on here.

[RPM]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Get ready for him because Kerry will be the next president. like it or not regardless of any poll on here.

8 ball corner pocket...........

[HighSchool Fan]

Even some democrats realize that John Kerry is not the answer.


Democratic Senator Blasts Kerry at Rally

By JEFFREY McMURRAY
Associated Press WriterWASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush-Cheney campaign Wednesday unleashed its most famous Democratic booster, Georgia Sen. Zell Miller, to make the case that presidential candidate John Kerry advocates policies inconsistent with some of history's most popular Democratic presidents.


Miller, a Georgian who is the lone Democratic senator to back publicly President Bush's re-election bid, criticized Kerry in a speech announcing his leadership of a national "Democrats for Bush" effort. He was joined by a handful of lesser-known Democrats, but the campaign said it would release a more comprehensive list in the coming weeks.

The popular former governor cited the policies of Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Harry S. Truman while contending that Kerry, not Bush, is outside the mainstream on issues ranging from tax cuts to war.

"John F. Kerry has the same initials as John F. Kennedy," Miller said, "but he has a far, far different view of what the government can do to help families prosper. John Kerry's spending and tax plan would stifle our economy and stall our recovery at the worst possible time."

Miller was an original sponsor of Bush's proposed $1.6 trillion tax cut, which Congress trimmed to $1.3 trillion. He argued that it represented a smaller proportion of the American economy and benefited poor Americans even more than one enacted under Kennedy in the 1960s.

As for the war in Iraq, Miller praised Kerry, D-Mass., for his Senate vote to authorize force. However, he said Kerry later opposed an $87 billion package to further fund the effort after "spending too much time around Howard Dean," the former candidate and outspoken war critic.

Miller also criticized Kerry's view that more diplomatic channels should have been explored through the United Nations before moving almost unilaterally.

"I cannot imagine the great Democratic Party leaders of past generations waiting with their hands in their pockets while a bunch of dithering diplomats decided the future of the world," Miller said. "That is the worst kind of indecisiveness. That is the wrong kind of leadership at this critical moment in our history."

The Kerry campaign said Miller had praised his Senate colleague just two years ago, calling Kerry "an authentic hero."

"Zell Miller's new leadership role will be a lonely post," Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said. "Democrats, and Americans of all stripes, are tired of George Bush's failed policies and broken promises."

Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot, a former Montana governor, said the campaign would use Miller often on the trail, particularly to rally fellow Democrats to the cause. Miller urged Democratic Bush-backers to find at least five others they could persuade to support the president.

"It'll be easy to recruit Democrats in Florida," said the state's former Democratic lieutenant governor, Wayne Mixson, who joined Miller on a conference call Wednesday. "I was with a bunch of business people yesterday, and I've already got my quota if that's all you want me to get."

Miller, who is retiring when his term ends in January, has by far the Senate's most conservative voting record among Democrats. He has backed the president on virtually every key issue and recently published a best-selling book, "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat."

[Cameronbystander]

Why is it that every demorat refuses to take math in school? The example given above about quitting a full time job to take a part time job has no correlation to the deficit.

Also you must remember that the deficit is only comparable as it relates to the GNP (Gross National Product) or other similar measure. Yes the deficit is a VERY large number but as a percentage of the total GNP it has gone done during the Republican administrations because of a heathier economy.

[Old Cardinal]

I thought it kind of interesting while Kerry the playboy squawks about jobs leaving the USA for foreign countries, Teresa( the catsup Queen), his current wife has moved jobs overseas and now has 57 facilities in operation in foreign countries-what duplicity. The Democratic party is the pawn of the Trial Lawyers which control the folks that pay no taxes and live off the others that are industerous. I did not leave the Democratic party years ago-the Democratic party which chooses to milk the good citizens and to thrive off the sweat of the working American, went off and left many folks a long time ago.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by Cameronbystander
Why is it that every demorat refuses to take math in school? The example given above about quitting a full time job to take a part time job has no correlation to the deficit.

Also you must remember that the deficit is only comparable as it relates to the GNP (Gross National Product) or other similar measure. Yes the deficit is a VERY large number but as a percentage of the total GNP it has gone done during the Republican administrations because of a heathier economy.

OK . I will expain it to you in Simple terms. The US government takes in money ( taxes ). It also Spends money on defense and other programs . If you liken it to a person and the persons bills , then you can see the comparison. The Govs tax revenue is like income.. and the governments spending is like a persons bills.. bottom line is when you take in less than you spend then you go into the RED. the government was in the black before the huge tax cut Bush gave. We all know it was heavily slanted to the rich. YES we all got a tax cut but both candidates advocated a tax cut in 2000. Gore wanted to limit it to middle class. If that had been done we would at least be closer to being in the black as we were in the Clinton years.
Its Laughable that Republicans want to attack a two time purple heart winner and a Silver Star winner on military issues when you have an AWOL national guard president.. The writing is on the wall .. time is running out.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

THANK YOU Mean_Machine. This is exactly what I've been saying over and over again, and I think too that it is time that everybody, Republicans and Democrats, look at the facts that are presented right in front of them and see what exactly is wrong with this administration.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
He is more intrested in trumping up a war against Iraq than the real terroist.( what he did would be like President Roosevelt decaring war on and invading Mexico in response to the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor!)
If memory serves me correctly, the US also attacked Germany after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Funny thing is, though, nobody seemed to have a problem with us attacking Germany. Oh yeah, that's because it was a democrat in office then...:doh: :doh:

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
If memory serves me correctly, the US also attacked Germany after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Funny thing is, though, nobody seemed to have a problem with us attacking Germany. Oh yeah, that's because it was a democrat in office then...:doh: :doh:

Well now. It was not us who declared war on grermany or attacked them first.. If you would have paid closer attention in your History class you would know that Germany declared war on the US days after the US declared War on Japan. so to set you strait, the US was not intending to go to war with Germany until Hitler pulled that stupid stunt. Yep Roosevelt was a Democrat. elected 4 times... only president to ever have that happen.. Sure need one like him now. this latest president is the poorest excuse for a president since HOOVER( Republican ). they both have simular records when it comes to Job loss stats. But look on the bright side.. only a few months left until the comon people take back the white house.:clap:

[AggieJohn]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Its Laughable that Republicans want to attack a two time purple heart winner and a Silver Star winner on military issues when you have an AWOL national guard president.. The writing is on the wall .. time is running out.

Democrats....the only thing you are united on is hating bush and saying that he went AWOL during his national gaurd time....leftist are so wacko...your just mad because the current president isn't a DEM

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
YES we all got a tax cut but both candidates advocated a tax cut in 2000. Gore wanted to limit it to middle class. If that had been done we would at least be closer to being in the black as we were in the Clinton years.


You left one thing out... 9/11. Gore would not have been able to spend as little as you think. The US wouldn't have just stood around and offered the terrorists the other cheek. The American people wouldn't have stood for it.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
You left one thing out... 9/11. Gore would not have been able to spend as little as you think. The US wouldn't have just stood around and offered the terrorists the other cheek. The American people wouldn't have stood for it.

Gore would not have jumped on Iraq.. Bush was out for going to Iraq from the get go. Iraq ended up being the punching bag for bush because he was frustrated about not getting OSAMA... so he trumps up the terorist conection ( turns out to be false) and talks about weapons of mass destruction ( turns out to be false ) and spends billions of dollars ( we have so much of that stuff all around ) to get rid of a inpotent bad guy. All this while doing in our relationships with just about every other county we were alies with.

PS. leftist.... what ever. by the way.. Comunist are better than Facist ANY day.

[AggieJohn]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Gore would not have jumped on Iraq.. Bush was out for going to Iraq from the get go. Iraq ended up being the punching bag for bush because he was frustrated about not getting OSAMA... so he trumps up the terorist conection ( turns out to be false) and talks about weapons of mass destruction ( turns out to be false ) and spends billions of dollars ( we have so much of that stuff all around ) to get rid of a inpotent bad guy. All this while doing in our relationships with just about every other county we were alies with.

PS. leftist.... what ever. by the way.. Comunist are better than Facist ANY day.

poor guy, must suck to be brain washed

[Sans Couth]

And here I was thinking this board was different than the cut and paste demo crap circus over on that other board.

P.S.

Still waiting for Big Blue to tell me in his own words, what he means by "surplus".

[spiveyrat]

Iraq had WMD's. They used them on the Kurds and killed thousands of them. Once we were in Iraq, we found the means to deliver these weapons as well. Intelligence even overheard Iraqis talking back and forth about hiding and/or destroying some of these weapons as we were invading. They did/do have these weapons, my friend. Your hatred of Bush and/or Republicans is what is fueling your ignoring of the facts. And Saddam in his hatred of the US would have joyfully given these weapons to whomever asked if they were to be used on US.

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by Sans Couth
And here I was thinking this board was different than the cut and paste demo crap circus over on that other board.



GEE....I wonder which board that could be??

OINK OINK;)

[TarponFanInNorthTexas]

My vote is for Kerry. Looking forward to when Bush gets kicked out of office.

Sorry to all you war mongering repubs.......but where are the WMDs??? If they actually DID find the WMDs, my tune would be different.

And besides, isn't it written in the constitution that "ALL men (and women) are created EQUAL"??? If two men want to get married, just let them. What's it going to hurt? Your egos???

[Cameronbystander]

Doesn't a line need to be drawn somewhere? Things change and society moves on but isn't there a baseline? Theft, prostitution, gay marriage, murder and other moral deviations need to be controlled and restricted. The same goes for murderous dictatorships. So no WMD's were found. Does that make it OK? I don't think so. Democrats want to make everybody and everything feel good regardlees of the consequences. The Republicians want to draw the line and protect it with our lives, for the sake of the country and our children.

How hard is this to understand?

[Sans Couth]

Just a question.

When you bury something in the SAND, does the surface of the sand look any different 2 weeks later than it does 2000 years later?

Not being able to find something buried in the sand, does not mean it does not exist.

Not being able to find ANYTHING that is missing does not mean it does not exist.

Where is Jimmy Hoffa, Amelia Earhart, Osama Bin Laden, King Tuts Tomb?

Oh yea, they did find King Tut didn't they? How long was he missing?

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by TarponFanInNorthTexas

And besides, isn't it written in the constitution that "ALL men (and women) are created EQUAL"??? If two men want to get married, just let them. What's it going to hurt? Your egos???

This reminded me of an e-mail I received....a line HAS to be drawn somewhere!!



(A future scene at City Hall in San Francisco in the near future)


"Next."
"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest? No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same opportunity to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license.


Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? You didn't draw the line at tradition marriage.
There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples only.
The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right, here's your license."


"Next,"
"Hello, I would like to marry my dog"
"What!! Marry your dog --are your crazy?"
"How dare you insult me and my dog."
"But, you cannot marry your dog!"
"Who says so? I want my consitutional rights. You marry everyone else so you must marry me and Fido. I'll sue you if you deny me my rights."
"All Right, All Right here's your license"


"Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return. I have constitutional rights!!"

Think about it................

[AggieJohn]

definately, if we don't defend the traditional rights of marriage now, then we will be screwed later

[CatWoman]

RangerMom - that was priceless. Kinda sums it all up doesn't it.

[44INAROW]

Originally posted by TarponFanInNorthTexas
My vote is for Kerry. Looking forward to when Bush gets kicked out of office.

Sorry to all you war mongering repubs.......but where are the WMDs??? If they actually DID find the WMDs, my tune would be different.

And besides, isn't it written in the constitution that "ALL men (and women) are created EQUAL"??? If two men want to get married, just let them. What's it going to hurt? Your egos???

:thinking: this statement might explain some things....:eek: :D :rolleyes: :cool: :p :doh: :hand:

[spiveyrat]

Just like the lady said, you have to draw a line somewhere.

[AggieJohn]

as a conservative, the more i think about it, i think that perhaps a civil union between the two is okay, but to say that they are married is desecrating the bond of marriage that persay my mom and dad or your mom and dad have. My biggest beef is that they are going to demand better benefits because they are a "married couple" what's to stop me and my best guy friend from going down a filing for a marriage license so i can get better benefits.....that's where the problem lies, if you don't draw a line now your setting our country up to failure later...perhaps that'st he problem with the democratic party, they are so concerned with appeasing to the special intrests that they don't worry about the overall good of the country...

[AggieJohn]

oh and i have decided that i'm in love with condolezza rice...she's a stud

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by explayer2001
as a conservative, the more i think about it, i think that perhaps a civil union between the two is okay, but to say that they are married is desecrating the bond of marriage that persay my mom and dad or your mom and dad have. My biggest beef is that they are going to demand better benefits because they are a "married couple" what's to stop me and my best guy friend from going down a filing for a marriage license so i can get better benefits.....that's where the problem lies, if you don't draw a line now your setting our country up to failure later...perhaps that'st he problem with the democratic party, they are so concerned with appeasing to the special intrests that they don't worry about the overall good of the country...

In my oppinion saying your a conservative or saying your a liberal is nothing to bragg about. Like it or not the worlds answers are mostly in the middle area not ot the left or right. Civil unions are the least of our problems. try huge debt.. terrorism ( not Iraq ) . If we are worrying about WMD like shrub says then try taking down Korea.. heck they are a REAL threat, but we all know shrub will not attack korea because they just might hit back unlike Iraq..Health care as well ... education ( not the unfunded no child left behind LOL )... The cold war is over. No need for SDI... no nuclear missiles coming in over the polar cap . the real threat is a terrorist bomb in a boat in a harbor.. stop military spending for the cold war and use it in education, home security, and health care.. we dont need to be the worlds policeman.

Vote for Mean Machinie in 2008!

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Another interesting fact that I would like to add to what Mean_Machine had to say is that Paul Wolfowitz himself said the reason that we didn't go into North Korea and went into Iraq is that for one reason, North Korea has no oil or other beneficial natural resources. I have to applaud Mean_Machine for sticking with it, I've already just about given up. It's a lost cause arguing with the likes of explayer2001 because he is the self proclaimed genius on the board and thinks that he's right in everything, but has yet to say something that is halfway true or defended his beloved president. :D

[KaktusJack]

Boy oh Boy. Rangermom conservative women are a turnon. Please keep typing. You sound like a hot lady.

[Old Cardinal]

You know the weapons of mass distruction issue is a little silly...They have films of the stuff on 18 wheelers...They just rolled it over into Syria along with flatbed trucks loaded down..Now we can't just go into Syria to "prove" it...You bleeding-heart-Liberals could not stomach taking out a murderous mega-murder machine Dictatorship; so how could it be proven where the WMDs are without going into Syria-which would not be prudent at this time..... If it was "proven" then you would just find something else to crybaby about...

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by Old Cardinal
You know the weapons of mass distruction issue is a little silly...They have films of the stuff on 18 wheelers...They just rolled it over into Syria along with flatbed trucks loaded down..Now we can't just go into Syria to "prove" it...You bleeding-heart-Liberals could not stomach taking out a murderous mega-murder machine Dictatorship; so how could it be proven where the WMDs are without going into Syria-which would not be prudent at this time..... If it was "proven" then you would just find something else to crybaby about...

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 .

[sinton66]

POOR job he's doing on the war on terror? At least he's doing SOMETHING. You can argue all you want, you can debate it up and down, but there were WMD's and we know this because we gave some of it to them following the Iranian Hostage crisis. Iraq was a dictatorship, not a democracy. The people of Iraq only know what Hussein wanted them to know. Even short range missiles can be considered WMD's. We know he had lots of those. We know France sold some to him as late as the year 2000. We know Hussein was making payments to the families of suicide bombers. We've been following the money trail for years. Face it folks, NONE of us are an expert on Iraq or Saddam Hussein. I promise you, our President knows far more about Iraq than any of us ever will.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by sinton66
POOR job he's doing on the war on terror? At least he's doing SOMETHING. You can argue all you want, you can debate it up and down, but there were WMD's and we know this because we gave some of it to them following the Iranian Hostage crisis. Iraq was a dictatorship, not a democracy. The people of Iraq only know what Hussein wanted them to know. Even short range missiles can be considered WMD's. We know he had lots of those. We know France sold some to him as late as the year 2000. We know Hussein was making payments to the families of suicide bombers. We've been following the money trail for years. Face it folks, NONE of us are an expert on Iraq or Saddam Hussein. I promise you, our President knows far more about Iraq than any of us ever will.

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.

[Old Cardinal]

I just received several e-mails called-- fundrace.org-- it was really neat. You put in your address and zip code and it gives you the campaign contributors is your area(Both Demos and Republicans). It was just amazing, all the lawyers were making contributions to the Demos...They get their bread-and-butter from all the frivilous lawsuits and slick chananagans that are set up by the Demos to extract money from the Corporations and industrious people...Try it out its a good informative site....

[Sans Couth]

Want to really have some fun?

Do like Old Card said and go to fundrace.org (http://www.fundrace.org) and type in 90210 and look at how the Hollywood folks spend their money.

You even get their addresses. There are a bunch of pages of supporters in Beverly Hills.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by Old Cardinal
I just received several e-mails called-- fundrace.org-- it was really neat. You put in your address and zip code and it gives you the campaign contributors is your area(Both Demos and Republicans). It was just amazing, all the lawyers were making contributions to the Demos...They get their bread-and-butter from all the frivilous lawsuits and slick chananagans that are set up by the Demos to extract money from the Corporations and industrious people...Try it out its a good informative site....

That is neat.. boy the Republicans sure do fundraise! Deep pockets! they out spend Democrats 3-1.. and you guys want to bring that one up.. better hope they keep that advantage or they are through.. Hey guys.. thank god for some of the lawyers.. they are some of the ones who could protect us against all the big corporations. Like ENRON..... or should the big boys just keep on taking advantage of us little guys.. Unlike you fellas my families income is only about $85,000 a year so I cant aford to vote republican. Im glad someone is doing that good.

[slpybear the bullfan]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
That is neat.. boy the Republicans sure do fundraise! Deep pockets! they out spend Democrats 3-1.. and you guys want to bring that one up.. better hope they keep that advantage or they are through.. Hey guys.. thank god for some of the lawyers.. they are some of the ones who could protect us against all the big corporations. Like ENRON..... or should the big boys just keep on taking advantage of us little guys.. Unlike you fellas my families income is only about $85,000 a year so I cant aford to vote republican. Im glad someone is doing that good.

Mean Machine... I just love your posts. You are making a perfect example of what a political zealout is for the object lesson I was giving to BBDE.

You amaze me with your political wisdom... imagine... you are in on as much information as the former presidents and current presidents of this country. I am astounded.

Sheesh, like I told that young man, if you wanna talk like an opinionated fanatic ... at least post some proof. Otherwise, we will all just politely I-G-N-O-R-E...

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
Mean Machine... I just love your posts. You are making a perfect example of what a political zealout is for the object lesson I was giving to BBDE.

You amaze me with your political wisdom... imagine... you are in on as much information as the former presidents and current presidents of this country. I am astounded.

Sheesh, like I told that young man, if you wanna talk like an opinionated fanatic ... at least post some proof. Otherwise, we will all just politely I-G-N-O-R-E...
Proof? heck what proof do you need? you actually think the Deocarats fundraise even half as much as Republicans???? come now. its all over the news about how much bush has raised compared to Kerry.. not to mention other republican candidates.. where have you been?? country club lunchons or what?

[sinton66]

Ok mean machine, here's your answer on why we haven't invaded Korea.

1. Korea hasn't invaded anybody yet.
2. Korea is not yet a threat to use their nuclear power on their neighbors. (Stop and think WHO their neighbor is.)
3. Korea hasn't gassed thousands of its citizens.
4. Korea isn't sponsoring terrorists targeting the US.
5. Korea isn't making cash payments to the families of suicide bombers.

Korea is not presently a threat to the security of the United States. If they become one, don't be surprized if we DO invade them. (Wouldn't take much, we already have thousands over there at US Bases).

Concerning your issue about them being nuclear and admitting it, it was inevitable that Korea would become nuclear. Southeast Asia has the world's largest concentrations of Cobalt. Red China became nuclear. Russia became nuclear. India is nuclear. We haven't invaded any of those either for the exact same reason. They are not currently a threat to the US.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by sinton66
Ok mean machine, here's your answer on why we haven't invaded Korea.

1. Korea hasn't invaded anybody yet.
2. Korea is not yet a threat to use their nuclear power on their neighbors. (Stop and think WHO their neighbor is.)
3. Korea hasn't gassed thousands of its citizens.
4. Korea isn't sponsoring terrorists targeting the US.
5. Korea isn't making cash payments to the families of suicide bombers.

Korea is not presently a threat to the security of the United States. If they become one, don't be surprized if we DO invade them. (Wouldn't take much, we already have thousands over there at US Bases).

Concerning your issue about them being nuclear and admitting it, it was inevitable that Korea would become nuclear. Southeast Asia has the world's largest concentrations of Cobalt. Red China became nuclear. Russia became nuclear. India is nuclear. We haven't invaded any of those either for the exact same reason. They are not currently a threat to the US.

North Korea has not Invaded anyone yet? (WRONG!) try the invasion of South Korea. ( remember .. "Axis of Evil"...)
Korea is starving thousand of it citizens so that it can support its communist militaristic state. AT LEAST as many human rights violations as Iraq.
Korea is not sposoring terrorist? your right... Im sure they have the moral values to NOT sell thier Nuclear weapons technologies to any terroist for money.... Keep dreaming!
The hypocracy is amazing!
we have 10 times the number of reasons for going into Korea than Iraq.

Bush is history in a few months so enjoy.:)

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Old Cardinal
You know the weapons of mass distruction issue is a little silly...They have films of the stuff on 18 wheelers...They just rolled it over into Syria along with flatbed trucks loaded down..Now we can't just go into Syria to "prove" it...You bleeding-heart-Liberals could not stomach taking out a murderous mega-murder machine Dictatorship; so how could it be proven where the WMDs are without going into Syria-which would not be prudent at this time..... If it was "proven" then you would just find something else to crybaby about...
I'm sorry that you like the gradual downfall of our economy, the millions of people who lost their jobs, the fall of stock prices, and us wasting money on a useless cause...I also loathe Bush now for making a mockary of our troops overseas by having pictures of himself taken as he was looking under tables for WMD's and using it as a joke to acquire more campaign money. He as well as everybody who laughed at him should be ashamed of themselves. That was the reason that we went into Iraq, and the same reason that hundreds of our troops and Iraqi civilians died needlessly, but you all think that it's a joke.

[slpybear the bullfan]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
where have you been?? country club lunchons or what?


ROFL... You really are a funny guy/gal Mean Machine. You make a supposition about my income/lifestyle/social status.

???

fa·nat·ic n. A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

You guys crack me up. Have fun with the "armchair" politics. WIth your self proclaimed knowledge I am sure any day now the phone call will come and you will have a cabinet post.... Heck, maybe even a NSA position!

(sarcastic laugh as I place Mean Machine on ignore)

[Sans Couth]

*Sigh*

Still waiting for BBDE to explain the "surplus" to me. And still waiting for an explanation on his Bi-polar writing styles.

How 'bout it BBDE?

[AggieJohn]

maybe theirs dual pesonalities, the first personality is BBDE-the "leftist liberal anti-war-have-too-appeal-too-special-intrests" version who get's his older brother who is so left to post on his name, and then there's the BBDE who is actually the 16 year old who thinks he knows something about politics but really is just clueless

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Proof? heck what proof do you need? you actually think the Deocarats fundraise even half as much as Republicans???? come now. its all over the news about how much bush has raised compared to Kerry.. not to mention other republican candidates.. where have you been?? country club lunchons or what?

Last I heard, fundraising wasn't illegal. What's your beef with that?

[sinton66]

You guys that are saying stuff about the VietNam issue don't know much about it. I'd suggest you do some research before you comment. That war was a fiasco from the very beginning because of the way the dems tried to run it.

1. John Kennedy made the original committment of "advisors" to VietNam.
2. Lyndon Johnson expanded Kennedy's committment to full blown troop deployment.
3. Richard Nixon inherited the mess and was left to deal with it.

One of my brothers was in the Marine Recon Division during the first part of the VietNam war. They were under orders that if they drew fire in the field, they had to call in and ask permission to return fire. They were under orders to take every prisoner possible and take them back to base. (A VERY impractical order for a small squad. Recon operated in six man squads. Took two people to watch a prisoner 24/7, leaving only four to fight.) These things were a result of LBJ trying to call all the shots. He picked the targets for bombing raids, etc. He tried to personally run every facet of the war from the oval office instead of place his trust in the hands of his field commanders. Is it any wonder there were problems with a drafted force? Believe it or not, VietNam is THE reason we now have an all volunteer military.

John Kerry's anti-war antics after his return were a "slap in the face" to anybody that spent a tour in that jungle. Even though he received a Purple Heart, what he got it for amounts to not much more than a "papercut" in comparison to real wartime injuries. My brother was discharged from service with a 50% disability resulting from his wounds in VietNam. He was shot by a sniper (twice) and blown up by a land mine. While in country he earned both a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for heroism as well as his Purple Heart. To me, John Kerry bragging about his tour in country is an insult.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
Last I heard, fundraising wasn't illegal. What's your beef with that?
No fundraising is not ilegal. But for people to have a problem with lawyers cotributing to one party when the other party has big wigs from corporations out spending anyone is laughable!

Also I dont recall a coment about vietnam but what ever.

What is the difference in what I have said regarding bush compared to what has been said about gore or clinton or Kerry? you know what they say... If you cant take, it dont dish it out.

You want facts? I have given plenty.
Our country spends more than we take in in tax revinue. Fact.
why? We gave a huge tax cut to mostly the richest 5% of our people... As i remember Gore was debating that if it passed, we would return to deficits... we did . Fact.

Bush gave most of the tax break to the ones who need it the least. fact. but now they were able to buy that much needed extra high dollar sports car or maybe a newer boat.. boy, sure glad they were able to do that..

Bush went to war in Iraq because of WMDs and Terrorist . Fact



None were found . Fact . and no conection hase been found with the terrorist group. Fact.

Our country has lost more jobs while Shrub has been president than any other president since Herbert Hoover . Fact.

I predict another fact comming... Shrub is serving his last year as president

[AggieJohn]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine


Bush went to war in Iraq because of WMDs and Terrorist . Fact




and you problem with that lies where.....oh yeah your a democrat and democrats are so special intrest serving that they forget maybe that we need to look at the whole picture and protect our country and not just our own hides

[spiveyrat]

Just got this in my email.

Post turtle

While suturing a laceration on the hand of a 70-year-old Massachusetts business Tycoon (whose hand had been caught in a fence while working at his country home), a doctor and the old man
were talking about Senator John Kerry possibly being in the White House one day. The old Tycoon said, "Well, ya know, Kerry is a 'post turtle'."

Not knowing what the old man meant, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was. The old man said, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle."

The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain, "You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he can't get anything done while he's up
there, and you just want to help the poor stupid bastard get down. Even then he's not sure which side of the post he wants to be on.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by explayer2001
and you problem with that lies where.....oh yeah your a democrat and democrats are so special intrest serving that they forget maybe that we need to look at the whole picture and protect our country and not just our own hides

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..

[spiveyrat]

MM: So, what's your slant on Saddam compensating terrorists families $25,000 upon the completion of terrorist bombings?

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
MM: So, what's your slant on Saddam compensating terrorists families $25,000 upon the completion of terrorist bombings?
So If that did happen the answer to that is Invasion? compensating families of dead terrorist is not Funding the terrorist. It does not even point to whether he even knew of the bombings in advance. besides that there has been no evidece that one dime was paid to any terrorist family after any bombing. It was mainly a bunch of talk to encourage terrorist to act on the USs ( we are the enemy of Iraq).Heck, the Bush administrations own terrorisim expert said there was NO link with Iraq and terrorisim past the attempted assasination on former president bush and Clinton bombed the heck out to them for that. but bush would not accept that. he was determined to invade iraq. I supported the war in Afghanistan. it was a good choice for Bush . but not Iraq. but this is a trumped up war.
Bush has just created 2 terrorist for every one that was already out there because of the increased hatred in the Islamic world.

[Ranger Mom]

I am not politically savvy....which is the main reason why I don't post much about politics.....unless it's some kind of joke or funny story. I just don't know enough about it!!

I don't know what kinds of WMD's they were looking for, what constitutes a WMD, etc. BUT.......IMO, Suddam Hussein was the most dangerous Weapon of Mass Destruction in all of Iraq!

Thank God AND President Bush that he is no longer able to slaughter innocent victims!!

[spiveyrat]

IF it happened??? I guess you must have missed that. It did happen and was widely reported.

Compensating those families is different? Saddam's knowledge of the bombings is irrevelent. Don't you think that compenstaing those families would be incentive enough for someone to sacrifice themselves to help their family? These are people from very poor countries. Their hatred of us is partially spurned by jealousy. It's just like in football. Everyone's always gunning for the number one team.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
I am not politically savvy....which is the main reason why I don't post much about politics.....unless it's some kind of joke or funny story. I just don't know enough about it!!

I don't know what kinds of WMD's they were looking for, what constitutes a WMD, etc. BUT.......IMO, Suddam Hussein was the most dangerous Weapon of Mass Destruction in all of Iraq!

Thank God AND President Bush that he is no longer able to slaughter innocent victims!!
I agree with you Ranger mom with regard to Sadam being bad and needed to go. but if we use the same criteria we used in invading Iraq, we needed to go into Korea first, Iran is another, Lybia is another Cuba and Syria would have to go on the list ..we cant just take down every bad dictator in the world by force. we are becoming like an impirialist power who does what it wants when it wants regardles to what our allies think.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
compensating families of dead terrorist is not Funding the terrorist.
Really?!?:eek: So, offering someone's family more money than they could ever earn in a lifetime is not supporting terrorists? After all, they think they go straight to heaven if they are killing "infedels" like you and me.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
there were NO WMDs.
Do you mean ever? If so, then you could use a history lesson.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Yep Roosevelt was a Democrat. elected 4 times... only president to ever have that happen.. Sure need one like him now.
Do me a favor and look at Roosevelt's polices and what he stood for and look at the current Democrat and Republican parties. You'll find he has a lot more in common with today's Republican party than the Democrats.

Same with Kennedy. What has happened is that the Republican party has moved more towards the center and is no longer a true "conservative" party. So, in order to keep the distance between the two parties, the democrats have move so far to the left (in most cases) that they are extreeme liberals. This is not the case in all situations, but in most I have found.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Really?!?:eek: So, offering someone's family more money than they could ever earn in a lifetime is not supporting terrorists? After all, they think they go straight to heaven if they are killing "infedels" like you and me.

No offering compensation to the Families of DEAD terrorist does not mean we invade and clean house of the country that may contain a person who does it. you go ahead and think the answer is to invade every country who has an individual encourages acts aginst the us. as we take each country down we creat 2 in the place of it. IRAQ was no threat to the US and you know it.
Remember- WMDs...... Iraq denied having them (anymore) and we have been there for a year now and found none and nobody with any information about them.. On the other hand Korea,( one of the other members of the "Axis of Evil) is over there practicaly saying yes we have WMDs , (ATOMIC BOMBS) what are you going to do about it? and we do what?? Invade Iraq!!!. Now we are talking about giving Korea economic aid so they will end the nuke program... the hypocracy is amaizing. only a few months left though then the AWOL C student who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth is back to tx to get back in the oil buisines.

[JasperDog94]

Do me a favor and GET OVER THE AWOL ISSUE!!!:mad: It never happened. It's been looked into numerous times and there in NO validity to those claimes.

And YES, when you offer someone's family money for blowing yourself up, that IS supporting terrorism. I noticed that you didn't deny that statement. You conviently glossed over it.

Korea is a problem. BUT, they are contained by several countries around them. Iraq is surrounded by countries that won't or can't do anything to them. Korea doesn't have that luxury. I don't agree with giving Korea one red dime, but these two issues are completely different.

[spiveyrat]

You keep mentioning that we should invade N.Korea. Korea IS a diffenent situation. Right now, we are trying to diplomatically resolve the N.Korea issues. However, those issues don't involve terrorists and thus (IMO) don't fall under the curtain of the War on terror. We didn't just decide on a whim to invade Iraq. We had been trying to get them to comply with a UN resolution for 12 years. Enough was enough. I will admit that there may have been some problems with intelligence. But, Bush acted on what he thought to be the truth.

If we did invade N.Korea tommorrow, you'd complain about that too.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Do me a favor and look at Roosevelt's polices and what he stood for and look at the current Democrat and Republican parties. You'll find he has a lot more in common with today's Republican party than the Democrats.

Same with Kennedy. What has happened is that the Republican party has moved more towards the center and is no longer a true "conservative" party. So, in order to keep the distance between the two parties, the democrats have move so far to the left (in most cases) that they are extreeme liberals. This is not the case in all situations, but in most I have found.

Now thats a hoot! Republicans would do away with Social security and medicare in a heart beat!

Democrats are Extreem liberals? well now it is all from your point of view now isint it? for instace in Hitlers point of view, Rush limbaugh may be considered liberal. So you think Kerry is Liberal? Gore and Clinton Liberal? they are more moderate. bush is moderate but leaning more to the right. A texas Democrat tends to be moderate in political views.. Texas Republicans tend to be Very Conservative( nothing to brag about ). california democrats - Very Liberal. California republicans are more moderates. so to call democrats extreem liberals just tells us your views.. Extreem Liberals borrder on being socialist or communist. Extreem Conservatives border on being Facist... Il take a communist over a Facist any day.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
You keep mentioning that we should invade N.Korea. Korea IS a diffenent situation. Right now, we are trying to diplomatically resolve the N.Korea issues. However, those issues don't involve terrorists and thus (IMO) don't fall under the curtain of the War on terror. We didn't just decide on a whim to invade Iraq. We had been trying to get them to comply with a UN resolution for 12 years. Enough was enough. I will admit that there may have been some problems with intelligence. But, Bush acted on what he thought to be the truth.

If we did invade N.Korea tommorrow, you'd complain about that too.

No Im not saying we hsould have invaded N Korea at all! Im saying we had way more reason to invade N korea than Iraq. Iraq was just a bum bush could knock out ,to make him look like he was doing something on the war on terror. he should have been finding the real enemy (Binladen).... WMDs... Remember.. we keep forgeting that. Korea has the ultimate WMD. Iraq HAD NOTHING.

[Titans]

Nothing really surprises anymore. Once I learned that UT is teaching liberal, democrat classes to college-aged children, I decided America is headed in the wrong direction. Not that I think conservative, replublican classes should be taught, either. Let the people learn for themselves. What a noble idea, huh?

Some of you are obviously against any type of action upon any country, whether a danger to U. S. soil or not. The threat is not enough to justify any attack. That's what I've been reading.

Unfortunately, force is necessary.

If you're not too keen on what's happening here in the US with furture terroristic possibilities, either vote someone else in or find a country that meets YOUR views.

Have a nice day!
:)

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
So you think Kerry is Liberal?
I think Kerry is whatever people want him to be. He'll say completely different things to different groups. Sometimes to the same group. "I voted for the war before I voted against the war." :confused: :confused: :confused:

[RPM]

Originally posted by Titans
or find a country that meets YOUR views.



LOLOLOLOL "Typical"

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I think Kerry is whatever people want him to be.
I think he will be president soon.:p

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Im saying we had way more reason to invade N korea than Iraq. Iraq was just a bum bush could knock out ,to make him look like he was doing something on the war on terror. he should have been finding the real enemy (Binladen).... WMDs... Remember.. we keep forgeting that. Korea has the ultimate WMD. Iraq HAD NOTHING.

And I showed you that we didn't. We are negotiating with N.Korea just like we did early on with Iraq. Possession of WMD's or nuclear weapons does not necessarily constitute in aiding terrorists. Russia has all known WMD's and I think we can agree they are not aiding terrorists.

We haven't stopped the pursuit Bin Laden either. The media does a real good job of showing us only what they want us to see. The war on terror still pushes on in Afganistan and Pakistan.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
And I showed you that we didn't. We are negotiating with N.Korea just like we did early on with Iraq. Possession of WMD's or nuclear weapons does not necessarily constitute in aiding terrorists. Russia has all known WMD's and I think we can agree they are not aiding terrorists.

We haven't stopped the pursuit Bin Laden either. The media does a real good job of showing us only what they want us to see. The war on terror still pushes on in Afganistan and Pakistan.

Have you forgoten the whole "AXIS OF EIVIL" deal? WMDs is the primary reason given for going to Iraq. Korea had the ultimate WMD. russia and the US are now on a very friendly bassis

[Titans]

Mean_Green:

I've seen you state the AWOL situation...can you explain in detail the difference, if any, between:

Clinton's DODGING and race to Canada!!!!!

and the alleged

Bush's AWOL?

Thank you for your support!

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by Titans
Mean_Green:

I've seen you state the AWOL situation...can you explain in detail the difference, if any, between:

Clinton's DODGING and race to Canada!!!!!

and the alleged

Bush's AWOL?

Thank you for your support!

Well now. Nobody remembers little ol bush in his unit and many of his unit member recall that he was never there.. and By the way. We all know why Bush went into the national guard and that was to avoid serving in Vietnam. why am I bring it up? Because you republicans cant have it both ways( i know you would like to though) . you cant critisize Clinton for avoiding the draft by the means he did and then have a president who was AWOL in his National guard unit ( when he enlisted to avoid the draft) who is above critsizim. It was the republicans who all started the draft issue and military service record deal. now its time to reap the benifits of that.
By the way Kerry Opposed the war in Vietnam but served and was awarded 2 purple hearts and 1 silver star..not peanuts.

[Mean_Machine]

[Sans Couth]

Mean Machine,

I think you would get a lot more folks to at least listen to your views if you didn't spew when you type. Calling our president "shrub" does nothing but belittle YOUR positition, because only 3rd graders and folks losing an argument, resort to name calling.

I have read several of your posts, and I would not classify any of your views as moderate. My guess is that you are just left of Willie Nelson, and just right of Susan Sarrandon. Just my observation.

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Have you forgoten the whole "AXIS OF EIVIL" deal? WMDs is the primary reason given for going to Iraq. Korea had the ultimate WMD. russia and the US are now on a very friendly bassis

Nope, haven't forgotten. Have you seen a thing I have typed? Or anyone else, for that matter?

Oh, and the records show that Bush was never AWOL.

Thanks for pointing out the peace between the US and Russia. Now go back and read my post again so as to understand the point behind it.

Man, you are THICK!!!

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Sans Couth
I think you would get a lot more folks to at least listen to your views if you didn't spew when you type. Calling our president "shrub" does nothing but belittle YOUR positition, because only 3rd graders and folks losing an argument, resort to name calling.

Agreed.

[sinton66]

I'm afraid this dude's too far gone. It's like he's hooked up to the dems line of lies, half-truths, and BS intravenously. His mind's made up, don't confuse him with facts.:p

[JasperDog94]

But even darth vader saw the light at the end...:D

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by Sans Couth
Mean Machine,

I have read several of your posts, and I would not classify any of your views as moderate. My guess is that you are just left of Willie Nelson, and just right of Susan Sarrandon. Just my observation.

Well like I said before. Its all from the perspective you are siting. Rush Limbaugh is liberal compared to hitler. Remember where you are TEXAS. one of the most conservative states around. So if your a republican and proud to be a conservative, most people are Liberal compared to you. I believe in the death penalty and a strong military ( not cold war levels though). I am opposed to gays getting hitched ( but I dont think you ammend the constitution for something like that ).

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by sinton66
I'm afraid this dude's too far gone. It's like he's hooked up to the dems line of lies, half-truths, and BS intravenously. His mind's made up, don't confuse him with facts.:p why say that? I dont call you guys Gun toteing NRA card carrying rednecks who think half the nation is on well-fare,and government takes too much of your money to give to all the lazy people or aliens jumping the border. I dont suggest your stupid because your a middle class redneck who is so brainwahsed by the NRA and people who converse or believe in the values of Bob Jones University that you cant see that you are middle class and not a wealthy country club better than thou.... so please dont insult me either because you disagree with me. You have your view .. let me have mine. If i want to remember all the promises that Gore made about the bush taxcut driving us into deficite spending I can. If I want to believe the FACT that we have lost more jobs under Bush than any other president since Hoover , I can. If i want to believe that there have been no WMDs found or conections to Al Queda and Iraq as has been reported even by the bush admin , I can... No reason to be rude to me personaly..

[JasperDog94]

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions. That's what makes this country so great. After all, for some people ignorance is bliss.

[spiveyrat]

I don't think that your fact about job loss is true. But I don't have time to look it up right now. There have been many jobs lost since 9/11. There have also been many jobs created. Unemployment is only at 5.6% right now. That's not high. But, no matter who would have been at the helm on 9/11/01, whether Bush or Gore, no one could have prevented the job losses in the aftermath.

[TarponFanInNorthTexas]

Originally posted by 44INAROW
:thinking: this statement might explain some things....:eek: :D :rolleyes: :cool: :p :doh: :hand:

Ok, that was a low blow. Take it back!

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
I don't think that your fact about job loss is true. But I don't have time to look it up right now. There have been many jobs lost since 9/11. There have also been many jobs created. Unemployment is only at 5.6% right now. That's not high. But, no matter who would have been at the helm on 9/11/01, whether Bush or Gore, no one could have prevented the job losses in the aftermath.

That unempoyment percentage reminded me of a website I was sent a couple of days ago!

Taking Care Of Business (http://members.cox.net/macallan_the/GW/GWBush1_MainPage.html)

[Mean_Machine]

Taking care of business is sure right! he is Big business best friend!!! not taking care of workers though

Reminds me of a website too!! lol check the link out below..


Originally posted by Ranger Mom
That unempoyment percentage reminded me of a website I was sent a couple of days ago!



Taking Care Of Business (http://members.cox.net/macallan_the/GW/GWBush1_MainPage.html) Figures on bush job loss in the past 3 years (http://www.afscme.org/publications/political/040112.htm) :p :p


Boy! the Bush Sr and Bush Jr records on job creation SURE ARE IMPRESIVE !! dont you think? or are the job loss figures fake??

PS. notice Clinton has the best record in Job creation..

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
That unempoyment percentage reminded me of a website I was sent a couple of days ago!

Taking Care Of Business (http://members.cox.net/macallan_the/GW/GWBush1_MainPage.html)

That's pretty good, thanks, RangerMom.

[Old Cardinal]

Unemployment is very low right now....The dynamics are great simply because many many Americans have started their on business(a lot of them are women). The job loss thing is a farce-people can and have started their own business and most of them are young industerous Republicans...

[20dawgz05]

OK EVERYONE VOTE FOR THE GUY ON 6TH STREET THAT WEARS A PINK TUTU AND HAS A PINK BIKE LOL!!!!! HE IS RUNNIN FOR CONGRESS!!!!!

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by Old Cardinal
Unemployment is very low right now....The dynamics are great simply because many many Americans have started their on business(a lot of them are women). The job loss thing is a farce-people can and have started their own business and most of them are young industerous Republicans...
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.

[sinton66]

Well, if I were you, I wouldn't bet any grocery money on it.

[spiveyrat]

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.

First, you have to consider your source. Those are numbers put together by an orgnaization backed by labor unions which are all liberally slanted. But, regardless, with the unemployment rate as low as it is, the people who are losing jobs must be finding jobs to replace them.


Here's some more data I found that I didn't have time to compile...

"OK ... here are some statistics. And NO, they don't come from some conservative think tank or some research group under the control of the Republican Party. They come from the Labor Department's. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

* The peak unemployment rate during the recession that began in Clinton's term was 6.4 percent.

* The current unemployment rate is 5.6 percent.

* In the last year more than 2,000,000 new jobs have been added in the United States.

* Between 1983 and 2003 outsourcing went from 6.5 million jobs to about 10 million jobs.

* Between 1983 and 2002 jobs in-sourcing -- jobs coming TO the United States -- went from 2.5 million to 6.5 million.

* If you subtract the jobs coming to the United States every year from the jobs going out every year you come up with a "net" figure. The net outsourced jobs reached its peak in the early 1980's; a peak of about 4 million jobs. In other words, things were worse at the end of the Carter Administration then they are right now.

* During this same period ... from '83 to '03 a total of 38 million jobs have been created by private businesses in the United States. No other industrialized country in the world has matched this number."


I'm going to throw this in too...

http://members.cox.net/macallan_the/GW/GWBush1_Start.htm

I have no idea what it says because I don't have the appropriate plugin on this computer and I'm not allowed to put unapproved software on here. Maybe you guys can view it and tell me what it says. Supposedly it's some more facts on Bush's economic record.

[sinton66]

That's the same video RangerMom posted above. Didn't hurt my feelings to look at it again though.:D

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
, with the unemployment rate as low as it is, the people who are losing jobs must be finding jobs to replace them.
.

No, Its because many people have GIVEN UP looking for jobs.. thats why they are not higher. Unemployment rates are calculated in part by considering the people filing for unemployment.

So the Numbers on the website I gave you are Lies?? Did you read the statement at the bottom that they were aproved and confirmed to be right by the government??

Try giving facts on Bush's Numbers alone without Clintons to help him out.. numbers from 2000 on till now.

Here is another FACT. we hit Record deficit this year at over $500 BILLION dollars....... you do you think that is a lie? il give you link if so.

How about Fundraising? want a link that shows how much Bush raised compared to Kerry?? oh it will be a Lie too ay...

I love the way you scramble to come back for bush.. He is being proven(ON PAPER) to be the worsed president in modern times.

[spiveyrat]

Who says they have given up looking for jobs, you? I don't buy it.

No, I didn't say the numbers are lies. I just know that numbers can be twisted to tell the tale you want to tell. (Say that quickly 5 times :D)

Sure there is a big deficit right now. But no matter who was in office, there would be a large deficit now. You simply can't fund a war without one. And no president would have sat idly by and let the terrorists kill 3000 Americans on our soil without recourse. Part of the deficit is because of the tax cuts. The tax cuts were put into action to stimulate the economy. What's become of it? People are spending money and the economy is rebounding. You gotta spend money to make money.

I'm not sure what your beef is with fundraising. We've already established the fact it is completely legal. Kerry fundraises as does Bush. It's a non-issue.

[RPM]

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNU04000000&years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
Who says they have given up looking for jobs, you? I don't buy it.

No, I didn't say the numbers are lies. I just know that numbers can be twisted to tell the tale you want to tell. (Say that quickly 5 times :D)

Sure there is a big deficit right now. But no matter who was in office, there would be a large deficit now. You simply can't fund a war without one. And no president would have sat idly by and let the terrorists kill 3000 Americans on our soil without recourse. Part of the deficit is because of the tax cuts. The tax cuts were put into action to stimulate the economy. What's become of it? People are spending money and the economy is rebounding. You gotta spend money to make money.

I'm not sure what your beef is with fundraising. We've already established the fact it is completely legal. Kerry fundraises as does Bush. It's a non-issue.

Try this link its From FORBS.. you republicans think Forbs is ok dont you ?? LOL


LOL the numbers are right infront of you and you will not believe them.
and by the way the numbers on the last site iI gave you are old. the Number of Jobs lost is now a 3 MILLION.. WOW. what an economic recovery!

No wait.. Forbs is Liberaly slanted too arnt they... LOL

Bush Job Loss (http://www.forbes.com/work/newswire/2004/03/29/rtr1315845.html)

[spiveyrat]

You just won't admit or concede anything, will you? How Clintonesque.

I won't be able to debate as much today as yesterday. I have too much to do...

Would someone else like to take the reins?

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
You just won't admit or concede anything, will you? How Clintonesque.

I won't be able to debate as much today as yesterday. I have too much to do...

Would someone else like to take the reins?

ME not able to admit or concede anything??? hahahahaha now thats a laugh! Im showing you proof of what I am saying in black an white and even a conservative souce at that (Forbes) and you still will not believe... boy I must really be ticking you off to be waxing your tail on this... I love it.. ok someone els take over I think we have a TKO on this fella... NEXT!

[SuperFan#1]

Bad thing is the "right" man isn't running for President.

[olddog73]

Originally posted by Sans Couth
I went and did some searching. If I am not mistaken, you are one of the first posters who introduced political argument on this board.

Also, I find it a little troubling that your sentence structure at some times when you are just talking about sports, the weather, and defending yourself, is not in the same zipcode as your writing skills when you speak of politics. I am afraid that I must question you in this matter, as it seems to me that someone else is doing your speaking , or at least, your thinking when the subject changes.

P.S.

I would like you to define "surplus" when it is used in the context of your last post.

I am afraid that you have been spoon fed the proverbial "fuzzy math" on this one. There is no such animal as a "surplus" when it comes to programs like social security. How can you have a surplus when Grandpa Walker is spending the money that the 19 year old kid that works at the grocery store sends in each month? There is only a "surplus" when Grandpa Walker put in more than he is taking out, which we all know is horsepooky. Grandpa walker is taking out each month what he put in in 6 years when the program was invented. If Grandpa lives longer than 2 years after he retires, he is spending juniors money, not his. Please tell me how that is a "surplus".

Thanks

Sans Couth, I noticed what appears to be a difference in BigBlues writting style when hes talking about politics also. I find it very hard to beleive that a 16 or 18 year old highschool football player would be willing to dedicate the amount of time that has been dedicated to the post made under Big Blues name, not to mention the time nessessary to research all the Yellow Dog propaganda that has gone into his post. It looks like maybe mamas sitting in some of the time, which is fine, other parents have posted using their kids 3A names, but have said so.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

No, my parents don't talk to me about politics, nor do they sit beside me and tell me what to write or how to write. You can even ask them themselves and they will tell you that I am better spoken than they are and use better grammar than they themselves use. Yes, I may be 16, but no, I don't go and read up on politics, I just call it like I see it. The reason I type so much---I'm simply tired of people trying to make it out like democrats are stupid and inept. Sorry that as a 16 year old I can argue with an adult about something many 16 year olds don't know much about, nor care about.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
Who says they have given up looking for jobs, you? I don't buy it.

No, I didn't say the numbers are lies. I just know that numbers can be twisted to tell the tale you want to tell. (Say that quickly 5 times :D)

Sure there is a big deficit right now. But no matter who was in office, there would be a large deficit now. You simply can't fund a war without one. And no president would have sat idly by and let the terrorists kill 3000 Americans on our soil without recourse. Part of the deficit is because of the tax cuts. The tax cuts were put into action to stimulate the economy. What's become of it? People are spending money and the economy is rebounding. You gotta spend money to make money.

I'm not sure what your beef is with fundraising. We've already established the fact it is completely legal. Kerry fundraises as does Bush. It's a non-issue. How are the 3000 Americans killed linked to Iraq in any way? Where have they proven that there have been links, and where are those WMDs?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Sans Couth
*Sigh*

Still waiting for BBDE to explain the "surplus" to me. And still waiting for an explanation on his Bi-polar writing styles.

How 'bout it BBDE?

Surplus, what is there to explain about that? What is so difficult to understand? We had a budget surplus under Bill Clinton...TRUE. Bi-polar writing styles? So sorry to tell you and explayer2001 that I have a life and I'm tired of devoting my time to people like you who say we are liars, but cannot prove us wrong. Myself alone has written everything on here, yes, I am 16, and no, nobody does this for me. Maybe ya'll are just being bitter that as a 16 year old I can write as good as or better than ya'll can. Just a thought though.

[JasperDog94]

I'm gonna type really, really slow so that you can understand me. (hopefully)

You say that 3 million jobs have been lost with Bush, yet you claim that none of them have found new jobs. (or won't admit it) You say that people have just stopped looking for work. Well, let's take a look at the numbers, shall we:

In 2000 the unemployment rate was 5.8% (US Census)
Employed 129,721,512 - Unemployed 7,947,286.
That's a total of 137668798 people.
Unemployed divided by total = unemployment rate.

In January 2004 the unemployment rate was 5.6%.
Employed 138,566,000 (rounded off to nearest thousand) - Unemployed 8, 297,000.
That's a total of 146,863,000 people.
Unemployed divided by total = unemployment rate - 5.6%

Using your figure that 3 MILLION people have lost their job and have "just quit looking" the numbers should look like this:

Employed 138,566,000 - Unemployed 10,947,000
Total 149,513,000.
Unemployed divided by total = unemployment rate of 7.3%!!!

Sorry friend, but your numbers just don't add up. Now about that TKO.:D

[RPM]

in Jan of 2000 the rate was 4.0
in Jan of 2004 the rate was 5.6

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

[AggieJohn]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Surplus, what is there to explain about that? What is so difficult to understand? We had a budget surplus under Bill Clinton...TRUE. Bi-polar writing styles? So sorry to tell you and explayer2001 that I have a life and I'm tired of devoting my time to people like you who say we are liars, but cannot prove us wrong. Myself alone has written everything on here, yes, I am 16, and no, nobody does this for me. Maybe ya'll are just being bitter that as a 16 year old I can write as good as or better than ya'll can. Just a thought though.

that's right you've humbled me:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I'm gonna type really, really slow so that you can understand me. (hopefully)

You say that 3 million jobs have been lost with Bush, yet you claim that none of them have found new jobs. (or won't admit it) You say that people have just stopped looking for work. Well, let's take a look at the numbers, shall we:

In 2000 the unemployment rate was 5.8% (US Census)
Employed 129,721,512 - Unemployed 7,947,286.
That's a total of 137668798 people.
Unemployed divided by total = unemployment rate.

In January 2004 the unemployment rate was 5.6%.
Employed 138,566,000 (rounded off to nearest thousand) - Unemployed 8, 297,000.
That's a total of 146,863,000 people.
Unemployed divided by total = unemployment rate - 5.6%

Using your figure that 3 MILLION people have lost their job and have "just quit looking" the numbers should look like this:

Employed 138,566,000 - Unemployed 10,947,000
Total 149,513,000.
Unemployed divided by total = unemployment rate of 7.3%!!!

Sorry friend, but your numbers just don't add up. Now about that TKO.:D
Ok I will folow it up and explain it to you....
I have said that the Unemployment Numbers are any different than you say. yes the unemployment rate is the percentage you say. BUT you cant dispute the Nubers of Job loss I have been giving you because They are accurat even according to the white house. We are loosing more jobs to countries overseas than we are creating over here.. The Budget is over $500 BILLION.. we wer in the black before Bush and his Tax cut for the wealthy.. Those are facts.. If you want to focus on the one little percentage that does not make bush look that bad then that is understanable.. but some of us want to look at the whole picture like the Deficit spending. Job loss. and the so called war on Terror.

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
ME not able to admit or concede anything??? hahahahaha now thats a laugh! Im showing you proof of what I am saying in black an white and even a conservative souce at that (Forbes) and you still will not believe... boy I must really be ticking you off to be waxing your tail on this... I love it.. ok someone els take over I think we have a TKO on this fella... NEXT!

That's right. You haven't conceded anything I have said on this thread. You haven't even given the benefit of the doubt, whereas, I have agreed with you on a few things. Everything I said may not be right (in your simplistic opinion). But, I'm an educated man and I know good and well that some of what I said was. Go back in look. You like it in black and white. Go see for yourself. Unless you go back and edit, you will find no concessions at all.

As for Forbes, all I know about them is they are a financial magazine. I don't read Forbes, so I have not been exposed to their writing. Therefore, I don't know if they slant one way or the other. You call them conservative, if I was more familiar with them, I might think otherwise.

I am not ticked off in the least. Get over yourself. You didn't scare me off. I have work to do and a family to support. I had some lax time yesterday so I was able spend a little more time on here. But today, some things have come up and I have to do my part to keep my economy rolling.

TKO? Since you said it, it must be true. Afterall, you're always right. :rolleyes:

[AggieJohn]

Originally posted by spiveyrat

But today, some things have come up and I have to do my part to keep my economy rolling.



That's right because we republicans work:D and those hippie liberals just want handouts! Spiveyrat your the man

[slpybear the bullfan]

I just love the ignore feature on this new board!!!

[Mean_Machine]

Look Guys According to the US bureau of labor statistics, the US has lost over 53,000 jobs last moth alone!!! those are facts believe them or not. not unempoyment figures... JOB LOSS... to other contries or job cuts..... GET IT? those are from the fed government.... not me.. dont shoot the messenger.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by explayer2001
That's right because we republicans work:D and those hippie liberals just want handouts! Spiveyrat your the man
hippie Liberals?? now thats not nice.. you dont want to be called a redneck FACIST do you?? so dont start.. Im sure you dont have a poster of Hitler or david duke on you wall so I wont go there.:rolleyes:

[slpybear the bullfan]

Mean_Machine
This person is on your Ignore List.

Yup, the ignore feature is awesome... especially when I have so little time to read posts here... you know, I can barely leave the country club and get on the computer what with all the champagne drinking, income statement reviewing, and making sure I keep my thumb down on all the "have nots" in the world...

*sarcastic laugh* ROFL ;)

[AggieJohn]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
hippie Liberals?? now thats not nice.. you dont want to be called a redneck FACIST do you?? so dont start.. Im sure you dont have a poster of Hitler or david duke on you wall so I wont go there.:rolleyes:

well i'm sorry thats not true..i know 2 or 3 hippie liberals that work

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Ok I will folow it up and explain it to you....
I have said that the Unemployment Numbers are any different than you say. yes the unemployment rate is the percentage you say. BUT you cant dispute the Nubers of Job loss I have been giving you because They are accurat even according to the white house. We are loosing more jobs to countries overseas than we are creating over here.. The Budget is over $500 BILLION.. we wer in the black before Bush and his Tax cut for the wealthy.. Those are facts.. If you want to focus on the one little percentage that does not make bush look that bad then that is understanable.. but some of us want to look at the whole picture like the Deficit spending. Job loss. and the so called war on Terror.

I work for a company who continues to ship jobs overseas (Russia, China, etc). Am I happy about it? Absolutely not. In fact, I'm tired of worrying about having a job. But, how is it the job of the government to say to private industry what they can legally do?

Let's say you own a company that manufactures "widgets". Your company is totally on US soil and employs all US citizens. XYZ company makes a similar "widget" and also is US based. XYZ decides to manufacture their widgets in Mexico because they can do it for 40% less than they could in the US (labor costs). They now sell their widget for 40% less than your company. What do you do? Let's say you work to improve productivity at your widget manufacturing plant. You manage to make your widget 25% more efficiently. There's still a 15% gap. And who's to say the XYZ company's plant in Mexico won't try to make the same efficiency improvements? These numbers are made up, but they're probably not too far off. Would you want the government telling you what your company can or can't do? Is it the job of the government to somehow make you profitable? You're going to have to decrease your labor costs somehow.

Times are a changing. We live in a GLOBAL economy now. We have to adapt our skills and our way of thinking to survive. It's ALL about survival now.

So, what am I doing about it? I'm looking to get out of the industry I'm in and move over to something more stable. The trick is to make the move before I'm forced out. Gotta adapt!

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
I just love the ignore feature on this new board!!!

Sleepy, are you trying to tell us something??? :D

Well, lunch is over, so gotta get back to it.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
I work for a company who continues to ship jobs overseas (Russia, China, etc). Am I happy about it? Absolutely not. In fact, I'm tired of worrying about having a job. But, how is it the job of the government to say to private industry what they can legally do?

Let's say you own a company that manufactures "widgets". Your company is totally on US soil and employs all US citizens. XYZ company makes a similar "widget" and also is US based. XYZ decides to manufacture their widgets in Mexico because they can do it for 40% less than they could in the US (labor costs). They now sell their widget for 40% less than your company. What do you do? Let's say you work to improve productivity at your widget manufacturing plant. You manage to make your widget 25% more efficiently. There's still a 15% gap. And who's to say the XYZ company's plant in Mexico won't try to make the same efficiency improvements? These numbers are made up, but they're probably not too far off. Would you want the government telling you what your company can or can't do? Is it the job of the government to somehow make you profitable? You're going to have to decrease your labor costs somehow.

Times are a changing. We live in a GLOBAL economy now. We have to adapt our skills and our way of thinking to survive. It's ALL about survival now.

So, what am I doing about it? I'm looking to get out of the industry I'm in and move over to something more stable. The trick is to make the move before I'm forced out. Gotta adapt! I will tell what you do about it! you vote for a candidate who will go after the Benidict Arnold Corporations and Close tax loop holes when they ship jobs overseas.. you dont give them a tax break when they are hiring people in other countries. Bush has Refused to crack down on this verry thing. Kerry want to make them accountable for that type of stuff and close the loop holes for Benidict Arnold companies.. you vote for a person who wants to stop it.

[slpybear the bullfan]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
Sleepy, are you trying to tell us something??? :D

Well, lunch is over, so gotta get back to it.

Spiveyrat... good luck on your second half today... I also read the board some at work and work in a very challenging field. I could not have said it any better... We compete GLOBALLY. And our Government CANNOT insure that US Companies will win. The strongest competitors will win, WHEREEVER they call home.

I hate it as much as the next guy... but that is the real world.

[spiveyrat]

...and then those companies raise the prices on their products to where you and I can't afford them anymore...

resulting in fewer and fewer people being able to afford them...

resulting in the companies going bankrupt...

resulting in mass layoffs...

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
Spiveyrat... good luck on your second half today... I also read the board some at work and work in a very challenging field. I could not have said it any better... We compete GLOBALLY. And our Government CANNOT insure that US Companies will win. The strongest competitors will win, WHEREEVER they call home.

I hate it as much as the next guy... but that is the real world.

Sure and we should Give those poor old American companies a nice fat taxcut if they do ship jobs over seas... LOL boy your something.. So you actualy think its ok for companies to get a taxcut if they are moving jobs to another country?? boy your must be related to Rush Limbaugh!

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
...and then those companies raise the prices on their products to where you and I can't afford them anymore...

resulting in fewer and fewer people being able to afford them...

resulting in the companies going bankrupt...

resulting in mass layoffs... No, they compeat!!! BUt you dont give AMERICAN company a taxcut for employing a certain number of employees if they are in another country or moving jobs to another country to hire a non american. American tax cuts should go to benifit Americans .. not companies who fire americans to go hire asians.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Ok I will folow it up and explain it to you....
I have said that the Unemployment Numbers are any different than you say. yes the unemployment rate is the percentage you say. BUT you cant dispute the Nubers of Job loss I have been giving you because They are accurat even according to the white house. We are loosing more jobs to countries overseas than we are creating over here.. The Budget is over $500 BILLION.. we wer in the black before Bush and his Tax cut for the wealthy.. Those are facts.. If you want to focus on the one little percentage that does not make bush look that bad then that is understanable.. but some of us want to look at the whole picture like the Deficit spending. Job loss. and the so called war on Terror.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure that I am according to you) but I was talking about your figure of losing jobs. You said that people have just stopped looking for jobs and that is why it doesn't look so bad. Prove it. I've given you the facts according to the US census taken in 2000 vs. the current numbers.

Your problem is that you don't want to count the people that found a new job in your "job loss". That's just plain stupid. If I lose my job, but I get another one, then I am employed and that's all that matters. I can support my family while paying for all the "others" that want to sit at home and collect a paycheck.

[JasperDog94]

I have another question for you democrats out there:

How do you cut taxes for people that don't pay any taxes? Better yet, shouldn't the people that pay the highest taxes get the biggest break?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by RPM
in Jan of 2000 the rate was 4.0
in Jan of 2004 the rate was 5.6

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

I got my info from the US Census.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-18.pdf

[Cameronbystander]

I tried to stay out of this again but these non-thinking, believe what they tell me democrats, makes it impossible.

Mean_Machine, do you know what the rust belt is? It is the home of the biggest hard core liberals. Mostly the northeast and Ohio valley states. Thirty to forty years ago this same discussion was being held when jobs moved from the industrial north to the south. Why? High union wages verses lower non-union wages in right to work states (esp. TEXAS).

What did the liberals do then? They cried foul and tried to stop the exodus. It didn't work then and it won't work now. The key is in better education and the creation of higher technology industries. Plus the economy must change with the times. The rust belt is just now being revived with some growth due to the Republician programs of Reagen and the Bush's. Instead of taxing and penalizing companies for looking for better profit tools we need to support these companies with incentives which leads to growth and more jobs.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure that I am according to you) but I was talking about your figure of losing jobs. You said that people have just stopped looking for jobs and that is why it doesn't look so bad. Prove it. I've given you the facts according to the US census taken in 2000 vs. the current numbers.

Your problem is that you don't want to count the people that found a new job in your "job loss". That's just plain stupid. If I lose my job, but I get another one, then I am employed and that's all that matters. I can support my family while paying for all the "others" that want to sit at home and collect a paycheck.

boy.. this is tough.. OK here we go... LISTEN. READ... The job loss figures I put on here were Links... they are not MY figures. they are from the GOVERNMENT. and from FORBES.. call the government figures Just plain stupid... they are what they are.. your in denial!!! You just keep hanging ot to the one thing that does not make bush look bad and I will keep giving facts like JOB LOSS..... RECORD DEFICITS... STOCK MARKET BEING DOWNFROM THE CLINTON DAYS.....NO WMDs IN IRAQ... ECT....

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
I have another question for you democrats out there:

How do you cut taxes for people that don't pay any taxes? Better yet, shouldn't the people that pay the highest taxes get the biggest break?

IF our country is doning so good that the wealthy can get a tax cut then fine.. but not in deficit times..

NO when it comes down to priorities the guy who makes say $200,000 a year does not NEED a tax cut like the guy making $25,000 a year
for the rich guy it is the difference between making an extra boat payment. a vacation home. for the other guy it is the difference between making a tuition payment for a Son or daughter.. Priority?? Tuition over Boat or vacation home.

Look I have been in the top tax bracket when I played ball a few year ago. so I have payed the top % and I didnt feel cheated in the least bit. I felt fortunate to live in a country that allowed me to make that kind of money. I still had all i needed at the time. so dont try that aproach on me. I think the rich dont pay enough as it is..

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
STOCK MARKET BEING DOWNFROM THE CLINTON DAYS
oooooo, so now it's Bush's fault that he inherited a recession on top of 9/11? BTW, have you noticed that the stock market is up this past year? Have you noticed the indicators of economic growth?

I also used government numbers in my equasion. I would have to say that my numbers make more sense. The numbers you're quoting are one side of the equasion. You, the government, or whoever can't say we've lost 3 million jobs and not take into account all the jobs that were created in the process. It's called economic growth.

Notice how we don't see any wagon makers or blacksmiths any more?

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by Cameronbystander
I tried to stay out of this again but these non-thinking, believe what they tell me democrats, makes it impossible.

Mean_Machine, do you know what the rust belt is? It is the home of the biggest hard core liberals. Mostly the northeast and Ohio valley states. Thirty to forty years ago this same discussion was being held when jobs moved from the industrial north to the south. Why? High union wages verses lower non-union wages in right to work states (esp. TEXAS).

What did the liberals do then? They cried foul and tried to stop the exodus. It didn't work then and it won't work now. The key is in better education and the creation of higher technology industries. Plus the economy must change with the times. The rust belt is just now being revived with some growth due to the Republician programs of Reagen and the Bush's. Instead of taxing and penalizing companies for looking for better profit tools we need to support these companies with incentives which leads to growth and more jobs.

Thats so laughable that I dont have the strength to reply so I will let my other post speak to old Limbaugh here.. lol.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Look I have been in the top tax bracket when I played ball a few year ago. so I have payed the top % and I didnt feel cheated in the least bit. I felt fortunate to live in a country that allowed me to make that kind of money. I still had all i needed at the time. so dont try that aproach on me. I think the rich dont pay enough as it is..
But I thought you were only 16?

[JasperDog94]

Sorry, that was BBDE...my mistake.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
But I thought you were only 16? 16??? where did you get that? im over 30.. LOL

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
. You said that people have just stopped looking for jobs and that is why it doesn't look so bad. Prove it. I've given you the facts according to the US census taken in 2000 vs. the current numbers.

Your problem is that you don't want to count the people that found a new job in your "job loss". That's just plain stupid. If I lose my job, but I get another one, then I am employed and that's all that matters. I can support my family while paying for all the "others" that want to sit at home and collect a paycheck. [/B]
Ok, I will one more time explane it to you.. If a Job is eliminated or shipped overseas and another job is not created to take its place in america, then we lost a Job in this coutry. that goes toward the nations job loss rate..

Here is a link proving in my eyes what I am saying that the Unemployment rate is not right. because people have just simply given up trying to find a job. its from USA TODAY.. Im sure its some extreemly liberal publication LOL but look at it anyway so you will not think im just making it up.


Proof people have stoped looking for work! (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2003-08-01-july-rate_x.htm) :D

[olddog73]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
No, my parents don't talk to me about politics, nor do they sit beside me and tell me what to write or how to write. You can even ask them themselves and they will tell you that I am better spoken than they are and use better grammar than they themselves use. Yes, I may be 16, but no, I don't go and read up on politics, I just call it like I see it. The reason I type so much---I'm simply tired of people trying to make it out like democrats are stupid and inept. Sorry that as a 16 year old I can argue with an adult about something many 16 year olds don't know much about, nor care about.

And what class do you have at 10:32 am in Rockdale High School that allows you some much time on the internet?:eek:

[olddog73]

AND BESIDES THAT............... The following appeared in a local paper as a letter to the editor, I found it very interesting.:D

Some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. Some people have claimed that Bush was the worst president in U. S. History.

Lets's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember. It was started by terrorists on 9/11. Lets look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

LBJ turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled Al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea with out firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,00 of his own people.

We have lost some 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

[slpybear the bullfan]

Very nice analysis, Olddog...

[slpybear the bullfan]

Originally posted by JasperDog94

Notice how we don't see any wagon makers or blacksmiths any more?

Yup... The same reason you can be the best Coach and Buggy Whip maker in the world and not have a job today.

C-O-M-P-E-T-I-T-I-O-N.

[Mean_Machine]

Boy you need help on some of these.


Originally posted by olddog73
AND BESIDES THAT............... The following appeared in a local paper as a letter to the editor, I found it very interesting.:D

Some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. Some people have claimed that Bush was the worst president in U. S. History.

Lets's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember. It was started by terrorists on 9/11. Lets look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

LBJ turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled Al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea with out firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,00 of his own people.

We have lost some 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

this is laughable.. ok here we go..

1) Bush didnt start the war on terror.. true.. BUT HE DID START THE WAR ON IRAQ. remember NO WMDs found and NO PROVEN LINK TO AL QAIDA found...

2)FDR Lead the country in WWII but DID NOT start it with Germany. GERMANY declared war on the US 4 days after the Japanese Bombed peal harbor... NOT as was stated above. Let me guess , this guy slept during History class...

3) Truman didnot start a war in North Korea as is stated in the above letter.. the North Koreans Invaded the south and we came to rescue them like we did for others in the middle east 13 years ago... thats anothe lie....

4) Kennedy did not "START " the Vietnam war. It started during the 1950s with the French and Vietcong.. another time he missed a few things in social studies....

5) Johnson turned it into a quagmire?? haha.. you mean the same war where NIXON ran on that he would end the war in vietnam.. he bombed cambodia and initialy escalated it...

6) Clinton did NOT go to war in Bosnia.. we sent Peace keeping troops as we have done many times . NOT TO WAR.. peace keepers... Invading PANAMA is more like a War and Bush sr did that, but it was not mentioned.. wonder why? LOL

7)Bush has done a terrible job on terrorisim.. According to his own terrrorisim EXPERT... And I love this... bush "liberated" Iraq??? ... lol.. the other presidents mentioned started wars including FDR( heck if anybody liberated anybody it was the US liberating the FRENCH in 1944 thanks to FDR..) this guy makes it sound like FDR attacked the poor Nazis.... maybe the guy who composed the above letter is so conservative he IS a Nazi.. hmmm.

boy this guy was realy making things up.. he should wourk for Bush

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by olddog73
AND BESIDES THAT............... The following appeared in a local paper as a letter to the editor, I found it very interesting.:D

Some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. Some people have claimed that Bush was the worst president in U. S. History.

Lets's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember. It was started by terrorists on 9/11. Lets look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

LBJ turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled Al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea with out firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,00 of his own people.

We have lost some 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

For your first statement, true, we did not start the war on terror, and I do think that it was great that we crushed Al Queda. In no way was Iraq linked to the terrorists, and try to prove that they were, because they weren't. You should do some reading up on history. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and we declared war on Japan, and THEN Germany declared war on us, we never declared war on them. You're also sitting here criticizing presidents such as Truman, JFK, and Clinton for invading a country unprovoked, BUT WHAT HAS BUSH DONE? You're being a hipocrit and you know you are. You should actually think about what you're saying before you click the "Submit Reply" button at the bottom of the screen. I have to compliment Mean_Machine for his factual analysis of U.S. history.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

All you Republicans use as a backfire to the way things started off and Bush showed his true colors of being a horrible leader is trying to say that he inherited a country in recession, whereas he inherited a growing budget surplus and the best economy that we've had in decades, only to have it tumbled down all around him and use the recession excuse as a scapegoat. Find some new material.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Explayer2001...you said that you had a 1450 score on your SAT, I figured that you would be smart enough as well as mature enough to exclude name calling and trying to exploit the fact that I am a 16 year old and that this is over my head and whatever else you want to say and stray from the discussion at hand. I don't say hey, explayer2001 is stupid and doesn't know what he's talking about, or there is something peculiar about the way that explayer2001 writes, nor do I try to cause people to have an adverse opinion of you by calling you two-faced. Let's try to be a little more mature about what other people's opinions are and not try to make the other person with a different political standpoint look stupid, thats what the debates between the candidates for President are, and no matter how hard we try to convince each other we are the ones who are right, we're not because we're all guilty of being stubborn, myself included. We prove nothing by having this discussion on this board anyways; its useless. Let's just stop the fighting amongst ourselves and get back to the more enjoyable discussions on the board.

[olddawggreen]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mean_Machine
[B]Boy you need help on some of these.



this is laughable.. ok here we go..

LAUGH TILL YOU CRY MEAN_MACHINE!
OK HERE WE GO... THIS IS MY TAKE ON THIS;

1) Bush didnt start the war on terror.. true.. BUT HE DID START THE WAR ON IRAQ. remember NO WMDs found and NO PROVEN LINK TO AL QAIDA found...

1) YES BUSH DID START THE WAR IN IRAQ, AFTER YEARS OF SADAMS REFUSAL TO FOLLOW THE UN TERMS FOR INSPECTIONS THAT HE HAD AGREED TO FOLLOW, AND AFTER MANY FLAGERANT VIOLATIONS OF OTHER TERMS THAT HE HAD AGREED TO FOLLOW, NOT TO MENTION NUMERIOUS INCEDENTS OF OUR MILITARY FLIGHTS OVER IRAQ BEING FIRED ON BY IRAQ FORCES AS THEY PATROLED THEIR THEIR DESIGNATED AREAS. AS FAR AS WMSS, EVEN CLINTON AND HIS INTELEGENCE FORCES SAID THAT THEY BELIEVED THAT THERE WHERE STORES OF WNDS IN IRAQ.

2)FDR Lead the country in WWII but DID NOT start it with Germany. GERMANY declared war on the US 4 days after the Japanese Bombed peal harbor... NOT as was stated above. Let me guess , this guy slept during History class...

2) ON DECEMBER 8TH, 1941, FDR SIGNED THE PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 2526- ALIEN ENEMIES-GERMAN. MANY BELEIVED THAT THIS WAS JUST SHORT OF A DECLARATION OF WAR. IT WAS AFTER THIS PROCLAMATION THAT GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES. THE UNITED STATES THEN DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY THAT SAME DAY. THE PROCLAMATION PUT SEVERE RESTRICTIONS ON NON NATURALIZED PERSONS OF GERMAN DECENT AND CITIZENSHIP WHO WERE LIVING WITHIN THE BOUNDRIES AND TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES, IT AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY AND SECRETARY OF WAR TO REGISTER THESE PEOPLE AS ALIEN ENEMIES, AND INTERN OR DEPORT THEM. IT ALSO ALLOWED THE US TO RESTRICT THEIR TRAVEL AND CONFISCATE THEIR PROPERTY.

BASICLY FDR DID WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS NECESSARY AFTER THE SUPRISE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR, AS BUSH DID AFTER THE SUPRISE ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER IN NEW YORK. WHILE GERMANY DID NOT NECESSARLY ATTACK THE US, FDR KNEW THEY WOULD, IN TIME, BE A THREAT TO THE US, AS BUSH FELT AFGANISTAN AND IRAQ WOULD BE A THREAT TO THE US.

3) Truman didnot start a war in North Korea as is stated in the above letter.. the North Koreans Invaded the south and we came to rescue them like we did for others in the middle east 13 years ago... thats anothe lie....

3) THE UNDERLYING REASON THAT THE KOREAN WAR BROKE OUT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS JUST ANOTHER EPISODE IN THE ONGOING COLD WAR BETWEEN THE USA AND THE USSR. ON THE SURFACE, THE KOREAN WAR SEEMED TO BE A WAR BETWEEN SOUTH KOREA AND NORTH KOREA, BUT REALLY THE SUPERPOWERS WERE JUST USING IT AS A FRONT TO COMBAT EACH OTHER WITHOUT ACTUALLY GOING INTO A "HOT WAR"- AS BOTH HAD THE ATOMIC BOMB. BY SUPPORTING SOUTH KOREA, AMERICA WAS ABLE TO FIGHT COMMUNISM WITHOUT DIRECTLY ATTACKING RUSSIA. TRUMAN FEARED THE "DOMINO" EFFECT.

SO LETS NOT TALK ABOUT LIES, THE FACT IS, THE SITTING PRESIDENT, TRUMAN, LED US INTO A WAR BECAUSE HE FELT THE NEED TO COMBAT WHAT HE CONSIDERED TO BE A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

4) Kennedy did not "START " the Vietnam war. It started during the 1950s with the French and Vietcong.. another time he missed a few things in social studies....

4) KENNEDY DID START THE GROUND INVOLVEMENT OF US TROUPS IN VIETNAM BY SENDING SMALL NUMBERS OF MILITARY ADVISORS TO VIETNAM. THE REASON WAS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS TRUMAN'S REASON FOR GETTING US TROUPS INVOLVED IN THE KOREAN CONFLICT. TO STOP THE SPREAD OF COMMUNISM. BY THE WAY, THE FRENCH FORCES HAD MADE THEIR PEACE AND HAD LEFT VIETNAM BY THE TIME KENNEDY SENT US TROUPS IN.

5) Johnson turned it into a quagmire?? haha.. you mean the same war where NIXON ran on that he would end the war in vietnam.. he bombed cambodia and initialy escalated it...

5) JOHNSON MADE THE VIETNAM WAR HIS OWN. AFTER HIS RE-ELECTION IN NOVEMBER 1964, JOHNSON EMBARKED ON A POLICY OF ESCALATION. FROM 25,000 TROOPS AT THE START OF 1965, THE NUMBER OF SOLDIERS- BOTH VOLENTEER AND DRAFTEES- ROSE TO 500,000 BY 1968. HE ALSO STARTED A MASSIVE BOMBING CAMPAIGN THAT WROUGHT HAVOC IN BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH VIETNAM. IT TRUELY BECAME JOHNSON'S "QUAGMIRE". ANTI-WAR SENTIMENT IN 1968 LED JOHNSON TO RENOUNCE ANY INTENTION OF SEEKING ANOTHER TERM. YES NIXON DID ORDER SOME OF THE MOST FEARFUL BOMBING IN THE WAR. HE ALSO INVADED CAMBODIA IN 1970 TO CUT OFF NORTH VIETNAMESE SUPPLY LINES, WHICH PASSED THROUGH THERE TO SOUTH VIETNAM. THE BOMBING ALSO FORCED THE NORTH VIETNAMESE TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE, WHICH EVENTUALLY ALLOWED THE US TO WITHDRAW FROM VIETNAM.

AGAIN A SITTING PRESIDENT MADE THE DECISION TO INVOLVE OUR COUNTRY AND OUR TROUPS IN AN UNDECLARED WAR BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT HAVE AFFECTED OUR COUNTY DIRECTLY, HE FELT THAT IN THE FUTURE IT COULD AFFECT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

6) Clinton did NOT go to war in Bosnia.. we sent Peace keeping troops as we have done many times . NOT TO WAR.. peace keepers... Invading PANAMA is more like a War and Bush sr did that, but it was not mentioned.. wonder why? LOL

6) CLINTON ORDERED 20,000 US TROUPS INTO BOSNIA TO SUPPORT A UN FORCE THAT SOME BELIEVED WAS NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR PEACE KEEPING MISSION. MANY PEOPLE QUESTIONED PRESIDENT CLINTON'S HANDLING OF THE SITUATION, WHETHER HE HAD A CLEAR POLICY REGARDING BOSNIA, WHETHER BOSNIA WAS A VITAL INTEREST TO THE UNITED STATES. MANY COMPARED THE UNREST IN BOSNIA WITH THE SITUATION SURROUNDING THE VIETNAM WAR, TO DESCRIBE THE PROBLEMS IN BOSNIA AS EITHER A LOCAL DISPUTE OR A EUROPPEAN PROBLEM.

CLINTON COMMITED TROUPS TO A CONFLICT THAT WAS NOT A DIRECT THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE HE, AS SITTING PRESIDENT, FELT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE US TO BECOME INVOLVED IN ORDER TO SAVE UNTOLD THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS IN BOSINA WHO WERE BEING SYSTEMATICLY BRUTALIZED AND MURDERED BY THOSE FORCES IN CONTROL IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

AS FAR AS THE INVASION OF PANAMA GOES, THERE HAVE BEEN US TROUPS IN PANAMA, PROTECTING US INTEREST SINCE 1856 WHEN THEY WERE SENT IN TO THE RAILROAD WHICH WAS COMPLETED IN 1855 TO SUPPORT THE CALIFORNIA GOLD RUSH. WHEN THE PANAMA CANAL WAS COMPLETED IN 1914, THE US TOOK CONTROL OF A 10 MILE WIDE CANAL ZONE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COUNTRY. THERE HAD BEEN US TROUPS IN PANAMA EVER SINCE THE CANAL WAS COMPLETED. US TROUPS HAVE DELT WITH MANY CONFLICTS IN PANAMA THROUGH OUT THE TIME WE HAVE BEEN THERE. NORIEGA TOOK OVER AS COMANDER OF ARMED FORCES IN 1983. HE BECOMES A BRUTAL LEADER AND IN FEBRUARY, 1988 HE IS INDICTED BY TWO FEDERAL GRAND JURIES IN TAMPA AND MIAMI ON CHARGES OF TAKING $5.4 MILLION (tAMPA INDICTMENT) AND $4.6 MILLION (MIAMI) FROM THE MEDELLIN DRUG CARTEL TO PROTECT COCAINE SMUGGLING AND MONEY LAUNDERING OPERATIONS IN PANAMA. AFTER NUMEROUS COUP ATTEMTS AGAINST NORIEGA BY VARIOUS MILITARY AND POLICE OFFICIALS, AND GROWING THREATS BY NORIEGA AND HIS THUGS, TO US CITIZENS, THE US STARTS TO SEND ADDITIONAL TROUPS TO BEEF UP THE TROUPS AREADY STATIONED IN PANAMA. DECEMBER 20, 1989 THE US INVADES PANAMA AND ARREST NORIEGA AND HELPS INSTALL A STABLE GOVERNMENT IN PANAMA.

GEORGE BUSH I ORDERED THE INVASION OF PANAMA AFTER US CITIZENS AND INTEREST CAME UNDER DIRECT THREAT FROM NOREIGA AND HIS FORCES.

7)Bush has done a terrible job on terrorisim.. According to his own terrrorisim EXPERT... And I love this... bush "liberated" Iraq??? ... lol.. the other presidents mentioned started wars including FDR( heck if anybody liberated anybody it was the US liberating the FRENCH in 1944 thanks to FDR..)

7) BUSH HAS DONE A TERRIBLE JOB ON TERRORISM? GET REAL BUDDY, IM WILLING TO BET THAT WE DON'T KNOW THE HALF OF WHAT HAS BEEN DONE SINCE 911 TO COMBAT TERRORISIM HERE IN THE US AND AROUND THE WORLD. WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT SO FAR THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STOP ADDITIONAL ATTACKS HERE IN THE US.

THE FACT IS, THE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL LETTER APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ABOUT ADDRESSING LIBERALS LIKE YOU WHO WILL ALWAYS DENOUNCE A SITTING REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE DOES. I HAVE TRIED, WITH MY POST TO SHOW THE CONTRAST AND SIMULARITIES OF THE DECESIONS MADE BY VARIOUS PRESIDENTS THROUGH HISTORY. ALL SITTING PRESIDENTS HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT THEY BELIEVE THE REAL THREATS ARE TO OUR COUNTRY AT THE TIME THAT THEY ARE IN OFFICE. AND THEY HAVE ALL MADE THEM. GEORGE W. BUSH IS NO DIFFERENT. BASED ON THE INFORMATION HE HAD, HE DID WHAT HE BELIEVED HE HAD TO DO TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY.

I HAVE NEWS FOR YOU, IF YOU AREN'T OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER, TEXAS WAS A DEMOCRATE STATE FROM 1865 WHEN RECONSTRUCTION STARTED IN TEXAS, AFTER THE CIVIL WAR, UNTIL 1979, WHEN BILL CLEMETS WAS ELECTED THE FIRST REPUBLICAN GOVENOR IN OVER A HUNDRED YEARS. HE WAS THE FIRST REPUBLICAN I EVER VOTED FOR AND I WAS STANDING ON THE CAPITOL STEPS BEHIND HIM WHEN HE WAS SWORN IN THAT DAY. MOST OF US WERE BORN AND RAISED DEMOCRAT, BUT GUESS WHAT, WE DIDN'T LEAVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEFT US. IT BECAME FULL OF SPECIAL INTEREST, TAKERS, FANATIC LIBERALS, ENVIROMENTALIST, AND YES... HATERS. IT DIDN'T JUST HAPPEN THAT ONE DAY THAT THE STATE STARTED VOTING REPUBLICAN, AFTER MANY, MANY YEARS OF DEMOCRATIC RULE, A LOT OF PEOPLE JUST GOT THEIR FILL OF WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN TEXAS HAD BECOME. THE FACT IS, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN TEXAS TODAY IS NOT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF MY GRAND PARENTS, AND NEVER WILL BE AGAIN.


LIKE MANY LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, IT APPEARS THAT YOU WILL ALWAYS THINK YOUR RIGHT AND THAT ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH YOU IS WRONG OR A LIER.
BY THE WAY, I DON'T VOTE STRAIGHT REPUBLICAN, I VOTE FOR THE PERSON MOST OF THE TIME. ITS A REAL SHAME THAT KERRY IS THE BEST YOUR GUYS CAN MUSTER. :eek: :D
UNDERSTAND THOUGH, THAT I DO RESPECT EVERYONES RIGHT TO FORM THEIR OWN OPINION. AS FOR POLITICS, THIS IS ABOUT ALL IM GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SUBJECT, BECAUSE I KNOW I WILL NEVER CHANGE YOUR MIND AND YOU WILL NEVER CHANGE MINE. WHAT WAS THAT SAYING ABOUT RELIGION AND POLITICS?:doh:

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by olddawggreen

BUT GUESS WHAT, WE DIDN'T LEAVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEFT US. IT BECAME FULL OF SPECIAL INTEREST, TAKERS, FANATIC LIBERALS, ENVIROMENTALIST, AND YES... HATERS.

Funny you should mention this. I saw an small excerpt of the JFK speech last night where he says, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". It got me to thinking about how much the democratic party has changed since then. The statement he made was one of independence whereas the democratic party of today preaches of dependence. Just an observation.

[Mean_Machine]

sounds like what I said before... a hint of Facisim. You slept during History class too ay? The US didnt start a war with Germany. Germany decalred war on us. You just showed your true colors.. you probalbly think the Holocaust was a Lie..

By the way Oldgreenwagon, how do you know as you say you do what any president thinks.. you view is not about Historical facts but on what you think the president is thinking...

[sinton66]

mean_machine, you'd be well advised to stop referring to people on here as Fascists. There are some on here that lived through that little part of "History" and are far more familiar with it than you could ever be by simply reading your "History" book. History, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. A lot of what you find in History books is theory, basically, the writer's opinion of what happened and why. At best, that's a POOR substitution for having lived through it. Often, people who lived through those times tell a different story than what is in recorded "History" if you bother to listen.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by sinton66
. History, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. A lot of what you find in History books is theory, basically, the writer's opinion of what happened and why. At best, that's a POOR substitution for having lived through it.

Thats sounds Just like what I hear from the Clan and Neo Nazis.. So It sounds Facist.. Not calling you a facist.. but your view on things (especialy history) looks that way.. So the history books are wrong! FDR started the war with the Germans.... Ok if you say so LOL.. poor fella.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
Funny you should mention this. I saw an small excerpt of the JFK speech last night where he says, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". It got me to thinking about how much the democratic party has changed since then. The statement he made was one of independence whereas the democratic party of today preaches of dependence. Just an observation. yes thats the Gun toting Redneck attitude that the half the people in the US is looking for a hand out and republicans do all the"hard"work. another brain washed notion. but truely redneck.

[olddog73]

OlddawgGreen, you took the words right out of my mouth! ;) ;)
Its a little easier to understand some of these things when youve lived through them. Mean_Machine, your a prime example of why so many people in Texas and the United States have pulled away from the democratic party. Keep it up!

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by olddog73
OlddawgGreen, you took the words right out of my mouth! ;) ;)
Its a little easier to understand some of these things when youve lived through them. Mean_Machine, your a prime example of why so many people in Texas and the United States have pulled away from the democratic party. Keep it up!

There is going to be a Democrat in the white house like it or not as soon as the Debate begins about the economy and Job loss in the us as a result of Bush. Gore warned us that if Bush got his way we would return to deficits... boy was he right.. only a few more months though untill this AWOL C student with a silver spoon is sent packing..

[olddog73]

We will see, Mean_Machine, time will tell. Best of luck to you:)

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
yes thats the Gun toting Redneck attitude that the half the people in the US is looking for a hand out and republicans do all the"hard"work. another brain washed notion. but truely redneck.

ROTFLMAO! Talk about calling the kettle black!

[JasperDog94]

Notice that when valid points are made that MM resorts to name calling?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Ok, I will one more time explane it to you.. If a Job is eliminated or shipped overseas and another job is not created to take its place in america, then we lost a Job in this coutry. that goes toward the nations job loss rate..

Here is a link proving in my eyes what I am saying that the Unemployment rate is not right. because people have just simply given up trying to find a job. its from USA TODAY.. Im sure its some extreemly liberal publication LOL but look at it anyway so you will not think im just making it up.


Proof people have stoped looking for work! (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2003-08-01-july-rate_x.htm) :D
By all means, let's use an editorial by an anonymous Washington journalist as our basis for facts, not the numbers used by every sitting president and major news organization in the modern era...:rolleyes:

BTW - that article is from August 2003.:doh:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
All you Republicans use as a backfire to the way things started off and Bush showed his true colors of being a horrible leader is trying to say that he inherited a country in recession, whereas he inherited a growing budget surplus and the best economy that we've had in decades, only to have it tumbled down all around him and use the recession excuse as a scapegoat. Find some new material.
Do you deny that the country was in a recession when Bush took over?

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
By all means, let's use an editorial by an anonymous Washington journalist as our basis for facts, not the numbers used by every sitting president and major news organization in the modern era...:rolleyes:

BTW - that article is from August 2003.:doh:

Of course USA TODAY is some liberal publication. so Im sure its an extreem Liberal paper with radical views....LOL Yes its 8 months old so the Job Loss rate has grown to not just 2 million as is was at the time of the article but now stands at 3 Million! You asked for proof I gave it to you... Im sure you would believe it if it came form a BOB JONES UNIVERSITY PAPER... that im sure would meet with your approval

[AggieJohn]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
boy was he right.. only a few more months though untill this AWOL C student with a silver spoon is sent packing..

like to see your college grades.....George W. Bush received his bachelors from Yale, and his MBA at Harvard Business School...not exactly ju.co. stuff

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by explayer2001
like to see your college grades.....George W. Bush received his bachelors from Yale, and his MBA at Harvard Business School...not exactly ju.co. stuff Its widely Known that He got into Yale with a C average high school GPA.. WOW! wish I could have gotten into Yale with those grades... Oh wait.. I know.. Its because of his NAME...BUSH... SILVER SPOON.. if you know the right people, money can get most things...LOL

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Of course USA TODAY is some liberal publication. so Im sure its an extreem Liberal paper with radical views....LOL Yes its 8 months old so the Job Loss rate has grown to not just 2 million as is was at the time of the article but now stands at 3 Million! You asked for proof I gave it to you... Im sure you would believe it if it came form a BOB JONES UNIVERSITY PAPER... that im sure would meet with your approval

Why not use the numbers that "EVERY MODERN US PRESIDENT" uses? (Democrats and Republicans) I you look hard enough, you can find an article that will agree with your point of view. You've proven that point.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Its widely Known that He got into Yale with a C average high school GPA.. WOW! wish I could have gotten into Yale with those grades... Oh wait.. I know.. Its because of his NAME...BUSH... SILVER SPOON.. if you know the right people, money can get most things...LOL
Ann Richards tried to use this same name-calling bit. Bush beat her...:D :D :D

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Ann Richards tried to use this same name-calling bit. Bush beat her...:D :D :D
ooooh, good one.. so your saying you think its fine that he was a below average high school student and got into yale... ok I understant how you are.. some of us think you should work for what you get and not take HAND OUTS.. and get things you dont deserve.. LOL sound familiar? Some may say that type of attitude about bush and lazy people getting HANDOUTS points to being a hypocrite.

[slpybear the bullfan]

This person is on your Ignore List.

;)

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
ooooh, good one.. so your saying you think its fine that he was a below average high school student and got into yale... ok I understant how you are.. some of us think you should work for what you get and not take HAND OUTS.. and get things you dont deserve.. LOL sound familiar? Some may say that type of attitude about bush and lazy people getting HANDOUTS points to being a hypocrite.

HUH?
:confused: :confused: :confused:

What does this have to do with what JasperDog said?

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
;) I understand.. you know what they say.. I you cant take the heat , stay out of the kitchen .. or better yet.. If you cant run with the BIG DOGS stay on the porch;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

[slpybear the bullfan]

chuckle.... President Bush graduated from Yale, flew high performance fighter jets, was a successful businessmen and has been successful in politics...

...people may hate him, but I don't think unintelligent is the right way to describe.

It would be like saying Bill Clinton is stupid. He isn't. He is a bright guy.

Does being bright, smart, and intelligent mean that every decision you make is ALWAYS right?

Not hardly...

(PS - Watching this thread is like watching the home and visiting fans of an intense high school football rivalry. ;) )

(PSS - Sometime I would love to hear an intelligent discussion as to why President Bush is such a magnet for hate from the liberals. It is beyond my comprehension.)

[slpybear the bullfan]

Spiveyrat,

How is the daily grind today?

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by spiveyrat
HUH?
:confused: :confused: :confused: ok I will explain that one Just for you Spiveyrat.. Im saying it being a Hypocrite to think its ok for a C high school student to get into an Ivy Leauge school like YALE or HARVARD because of what family he is from or how much money his family has.. That type of person DOES NOT DISERVE TO GO TO YALE..HAND OUT FOR THE BUSH FAMILY. .. Then also have the attitude that other people ( less fortunate for what ever reason ) dont diserve a HAND OUT because they dont "work for it"... thats being a HYPOCRITE. im my view.

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan

(PS - Watching this thread is like watching the home and visiting fans of an intense high school football rivalry. ;) )

Ain't it fun??? :D

(PSS - Sometime I would love to hear an intelligent discussion as to why President Bush is such a magnet for hate from the liberals. It is beyond my comprehension.)

Intelligent being the key word, right? I'd like to see that too.

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by slpybear the bullfan
Spiveyrat,

How is the daily grind today?

Grinding right along. Putting all the pieces in the right places. ;)

How 'bout for you?

[spiveyrat]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
ok I will explain that one Just for you Spiveyrat.. Im saying it being a Hypocrite to think its ok for a C high school student to get into an Ivy Leauge school like YALE or HARVARD because of what family he is from or how much money his family has.. That type of person DOES NOT DISERVE TO GO TO YALE..HAND OUT FOR THE BUSH FAMILY. .. Then also have the attitude that other people ( less fortunate for what ever reason ) dont diserve a HAND OUT because they dont "work for it"... thats being a HYPOCRITE. im my view.

What I didn't understand was what that had to do with JasperDog's quote you were replying to.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Of course USA TODAY is some liberal publication. so Im sure its an extreem Liberal paper with radical views....LOL Yes its 8 months old so the Job Loss rate has grown to not just 2 million as is was at the time of the article but now stands at 3 Million! You asked for proof I gave it to you... Im sure you would believe it if it came form a BOB JONES UNIVERSITY PAPER... that im sure would meet with your approval

Is this the same paper you were getting your info from?


USA Today Says Reporter Faked Stories
Friday, March 19, 2004
ARLINGTON, Va. – USA Today said Friday that an examination of the work of journalist Jack Kelley found strong evidence that the newspaper's former star foreign correspondent had fabricated substantial portions of at least eight major stories.

"As an institution, we failed our readers by not recognizing Jack Kelley's problems. For that I apologize," publisher Craig Moon said.

After spending seven weeks examining Kelley's work, a team of journalists also found that Kelley had lifted quotes or other material from competing publications, lied in speeches he delivered for USA Today and conspired to mislead the investigation into his work.

An examination of his computer unearthed scripts Kelley had written to help at least three people mislead reporters attempting to verify his work, the newspaper said.

For a story in 2000, the newspaper said, Kelley used a snapshot he took of a Cuban hotel worker to authenticate a tale he made up about a woman who died fleeing Cuba by boat. The woman in the published photo never fled by boat, and a USA Today reporter located her alive this month, the newspaper said.

Kelley, 43, quit the newspaper in January after admitting he conspired with a translator to mislead editors looking into the veracity of his reporting.

Kelly said he'd never fabricated or plagiarized.

"I feel like I'm being set up," he told editors at the newspaper on Thursday.

Kelley spent his entire 21-year career at USA Today and was five times nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, the most prestigious award in journalism.

For one of the stories that helped make him a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2001, Kelley wrote that he was an eyewitness to a suicide bombing in Jerusalem and described the carnage in graphic detail. But the investigation showed that the man Kelley described as the bomber could not have been the culprit, and his description of three decapitated victims was contradicted by police.

The newspaper also said "the evidence strongly contradicted" other published accounts by Kelley: that he spent the night with Egyptian terrorists in 1997; met a vigilante Jewish settler named Avi Shapiro in 2001; watched a Pakistani student unfold a picture of the Sears Tower and say, "This one is mine," in 2001; interviewed the daughter of an Iraqi general in 2003; or went on a high-speed hunt for Osama bin Laden in 2003.

Hotel, phone or other records contradicted Kelley's explanations of how he reported stories from Egypt, Russia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, Cuba and Pakistan, the newspaper said.

The three former newspaper editors brought in to conduct the investigation - Bill Hilliard, Bill Kovach and John Seigenthaler - called Kelley's conduct "a sad and shameful betrayal of public trust."

[AggieJohn]

check this out!!!haha debate time should be fun (http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/fresh/showpics.cgi?kerrys_debate_strategy)

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Is this the same paper you were getting your info from?


USA Today Says Reporter Faked Stories
Friday, March 19, 2004
ARLINGTON, Va. – USA Today said Friday that an examination of the work of journalist Jack Kelley found strong evidence that the newspaper's former star foreign correspondent had fabricated substantial portions of at least eight major stories.

"As an institution, we failed our readers by not recognizing Jack Kelley's problems. For that I apologize," publisher Craig Moon said.

After spending seven weeks examining Kelley's work, a team of journalists also found that Kelley had lifted quotes or other material from competing publications, lied in speeches he delivered for USA Today and conspired to mislead the investigation into his work.

An examination of his computer unearthed scripts Kelley had written to help at least three people mislead reporters attempting to verify his work, the newspaper said.

For a story in 2000, the newspaper said, Kelley used a snapshot he took of a Cuban hotel worker to authenticate a tale he made up about a woman who died fleeing Cuba by boat. The woman in the published photo never fled by boat, and a USA Today reporter located her alive this month, the newspaper said.

Kelley, 43, quit the newspaper in January after admitting he conspired with a translator to mislead editors looking into the veracity of his reporting.

Kelly said he'd never fabricated or plagiarized.

"I feel like I'm being set up," he told editors at the newspaper on Thursday.

Kelley spent his entire 21-year career at USA Today and was five times nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, the most prestigious award in journalism.

For one of the stories that helped make him a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2001, Kelley wrote that he was an eyewitness to a suicide bombing in Jerusalem and described the carnage in graphic detail. But the investigation showed that the man Kelley described as the bomber could not have been the culprit, and his description of three decapitated victims was contradicted by police.

The newspaper also said "the evidence strongly contradicted" other published accounts by Kelley: that he spent the night with Egyptian terrorists in 1997; met a vigilante Jewish settler named Avi Shapiro in 2001; watched a Pakistani student unfold a picture of the Sears Tower and say, "This one is mine," in 2001; interviewed the daughter of an Iraqi general in 2003; or went on a high-speed hunt for Osama bin Laden in 2003.

Hotel, phone or other records contradicted Kelley's explanations of how he reported stories from Egypt, Russia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, Cuba and Pakistan, the newspaper said.

The three former newspaper editors brought in to conduct the investigation - Bill Hilliard, Bill Kovach and John Seigenthaler - called Kelley's conduct "a sad and shameful betrayal of public trust." So your saying its a fake.. good one.. when your aregument fails you just say " thats a fake!" lol.. OK here are a few more saying the same thing. I guess they will be fakes too. All seperate links..More proof on Unemployment rate (http://www.jobbankusa.com/news/unemployment/unemploy10904a.html)
another story for you (http://www.heritage.org/research/labor/wm456.cfm)
Another one for you LOL.... (www.stargeek.com/item/51460.html)
Last link of proof about unemployment rate LOL... (http://www.timblair.spleenville.com/archives/006086.php)

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
So your saying its a fake.. good one.. when your aregument fails you just say " thats a fake!" lol..
No, just saying that I wouldn't put all my trust in what seems to be an unreliable source. That's all.

[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.:)

[Ranger Mom]

AARRGGHH!!!!!!

Someone posts a link and someone else posts another link saying right the opposite of what the other says!!

How does someone who doesn't follow politics know which one is correct?? SOMEONE'S got to be lying....EVERYTHING that has been posted on this thread can't be true.

(Not calling anyone on here a liar...I am talking about the information in all the links)!!

I will do what I always do.....use my "Woman's Intuition", to decide who I think is more honest, has more integrity, who's not saying what he thinks everyone wants to hear, etc.

I have been watching each candidate's reactions, facial expressions, body language and already know who I would vote for if the election was today!!

Just ask Sinton66 about my "Intuition" - it's so accurate it's uncanny!!!:D :D

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Someone posts a link and someone else posts another link saying right the opposite of what the other says!!

You're correct about that Ranger Mom. If you look hard enough, you'll find somebody did a study somewhere that backs up your opinion. I used the US Census for my study on unemployment for 2000 and the Government figures for January of 2004. The "job loss" category is a new one for me.

You just have to look at what each candidate stands for. At least with Clinton, you knew where you stood. I was usually against it, but you knew where he was coming from. But Kerry changes his mind too much for me to trust anything that he says.

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
AARRGGHH!!!!!!

Someone posts a link and someone else posts another link saying right the opposite of what the other says!!

How does someone who doesn't follow politics know which one is correct?? SOMEONE'S got to be lying....EVERYTHING that has been posted on this thread can't be true.

(Not calling anyone on here a liar...I am talking about the information in all the links)!!

I will do what I always do.....use my "Woman's Intuition", to decide who I think is more honest, has more integrity, who's not saying what he thinks everyone wants to hear, etc.

I have been watching each candidate's reactions, facial expressions, body language and already know who I would vote for if the election was today!!

Just ask Sinton66 about my "Intuition" - it's so accurate it's uncanny!!!:D :D Ranger mom..
I have provided about 5 different links that say the same thing including one from USA TODAY... I have given one from USB of Labor Statistics.... BUT I WILL KEEP GIVING LINKS.. There is so much on the subject of Job Loss and people giving up looking for work it would make your head swim.. Just Go to Google.com and do a search and type in ( Unemployment+rate+quit+looking) or for info on JOB LOSS type ( JOB+LOSS+RATE+US+BUSH) its amaizing how much is there.. pages and pages and you can pick your source.. most say the same thing...

PS. I love how The former Terroisim EXPERT of the Bush admin is exposing the truth about Iraq and Terorrism..

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
PS. I love how The former Terroisim EXPERT of the Bush admin is exposing the truth about Iraq and Terorrism..
That is proof that you can't leave any holdovers from the previous administration. They'll look for any reason to come out against you, even if it does open old wounds...

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Ranger mom..
I have provided about 5 different links that say the same thing including one from USA TODAY... I have given one from USB of Labor Statistics.... BUT I WILL KEEP GIVING LINKS.. There is so much on the subject of Job Loss and people giving up looking for work it would make your head swim.. Just Go to Google.com and do a search and type in ( Unemployment+rate+quit+looking) or for info on JOB LOSS type ( JOB+LOSS+RATE+US+BUSH) its amaizing how much is there.. pages and pages and you can pick your source.. most say the same thing...


Ranger Mom,

You can go to google.com and type in "job loss us bush" and get 1,300.000 results.

You can type in "jobs created us bush" and get 1,920.000 results.

You be the judge...:D :D :D :D :D :D

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Ranger Mom,

You can go to google.com and type in "job loss us bush" and get 1,300.000 results.

You can type in "jobs created us bush" and get 1,920.000 results.

You be the judge...:D :D :D :D :D :D Ok Here is a Link that PROVE what I have been saying is true.. tis from CBSNEWS.COM....
data comes from the US department of Labor.. Im sure its a Verry Liberal organization..LOL



CBSNEWS.COM BUSH JOB LOSS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/03/national/main561546.shtml)

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.. Now provide me with a Link with data saying (now read carefully) More Jobs have been created under Bushs watch than Have been lost.... you will not be able to because he has lost nearly 3 MILLION Jobs.. The worst record in Modern Times...

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by olddog73
And what class do you have at 10:32 am in Rockdale High School that allows you some much time on the internet?:eek:

I was in my honors world history class. :D

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Do you deny that the country was in a recession when Bush took over?
Yes, there was no recession when Bush took over. Well, thats what I believe anyways unless somebody can prove otherwise...it did come out of Bush's lips, and I don't believe a thing the man says after his WMD jokes at a campaign rally.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Yes, there was no recession when Bush took over. Well, thats what I believe anyways unless somebody can prove otherwise...it did come out of Bush's lips, and I don't believe a thing the man says after his WMD jokes at a campaign rally.
Declining stock market for 8 or 9 months, consumer spending way down, economic growth slowing to next to nothing...what else do you need?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Ok Here is a Link that PROVE what I have been saying is true.. tis from CBSNEWS.COM....
data comes from the US department of Labor.. Im sure its a Verry Liberal organization..LOL



CBSNEWS.COM BUSH JOB LOSS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/03/national/main561546.shtml)

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.. Now provide me with a Link with data saying (now read carefully) More Jobs have been created under Bushs watch than Have been lost.... you will not be able to because he has lost nearly 3 MILLION Jobs.. The worst record in Modern Times...
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...

[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.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Declining stock market for 8 or 9 months, consumer spending way down, economic growth slowing to next to nothing...what else do you need? My words were never enough to convince ya'll, where are the facts? All I see are assumptions. I never saw anything you're talking about, I mean, granted I WAS only 12....but my parents were bound to have said something about it.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

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.

You are so full of crap that it isn't funny. You think that all Democrats do is sit around and get on unemployment, but newsflash, you're wrong. My father has worked for 30 years+ and my mom has worked in between my brothers and I. Are you that stupid that you think that all we do is sit around all the time and hunt and fish? I have news for you, you probably had it easy growing up. My dad grew up on a dairy farm and has worked his fingers to the bone all of his life to get myself and my family ahead, and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit here and let you talk down upon the Democrats as a whole like this and try to include my family in it. My father also served 4 years in the Air Force during the Vietnam War. Have you served in the military? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm assuming that you haven't. You're trying to accuse me of being stupid? I'm far from that, and when I've graduated from college, and I get the job that I want, I can look down upon you and laugh because you will be old and withered drawing the little retirement that you will have left after Bush takes the majority of it. There are so many things that I want to say to you right now that are a little unappropriate for me to put on here. I've never criticized any of the Republicans on any of my posts, nor the lifestyle that they've led, or the decision that they have made to be on the Republican side of the fence, but you've stepped over the line with what you've said Old Card.

[Mean_Machine]

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... 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:

[jason]

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 to 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..

class dismissed. thats great that you can do math, but thats only a 2% decrease....thats not that too bad...

[Mean_Machine]

Originally posted by jason
thats great that you can do math, but thats only a 2% decrease....thats not that too bad... 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

[jason]

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 explain this to me..how has HE lost all those jobs, maybe the people that got laid off or whatever sucked at what they were doing so they got rid of the position....

[slpybear the bullfan]

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

...understand now Jasperdog?? or are you special ed and need to go to content mastery for help?

LOL

class dismissed.:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

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.

[AggieJohn]

http://members.cox.net/macallan_the/GW/GWBush1_Start.htm


we can all rest assure that after you take a look at this youwill relize that your democratic party is a bunch of peopel that stand united for nothing

[slpybear the bullfan]

Check your link, player...

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
Now thats a hoot! Republicans would do away with Social security and medicare in a heart beat!

Democrats are Extreem liberals? well now it is all from your point of view now isint it? for instace in Hitlers point of view, Rush limbaugh may be considered liberal. So you think Kerry is Liberal? Gore and Clinton Liberal? they are more moderate. bush is moderate but leaning more to the right. A texas Democrat tends to be moderate in political views.. Texas Republicans tend to be Very Conservative( nothing to brag about ). california democrats - Very Liberal. California republicans are more moderates. so to call democrats extreem liberals just tells us your views.. Extreem Liberals borrder on being socialist or communist. Extreem Conservatives border on being Facist... Il take a communist over a Facist any day.
.
*I changed this because name calling is wrong*. Communism is simply a bad word here in the United States. It should be cuz it stands for everything this GREAT NATION stands against. Take a moment folks and go to this website: http://www.dsausa.org/about/index.html (Democratic Socialist of America) .
I remember when we still fought the Soviet Union. The USSR. The USSR!
If you don't know what that means, look it up. Hint: One of the "S"s stands for Socialist. Huh, go figure...
Why would you take communism over fascism(Bush is not one, nice try at the Hitler mention) anyway? Is it because it hinders your agenda? Of course...
When the Democrats became Communists(Socialist, where's the difference?) they lost power here. Plain and simple. Now us dumb hicks are just too stupid too know what's good for us, aren't we?
This country was built on and still relies on RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM. Now that's a bad couple of words for "Socialism"(socialist), isn't it? It was strong enough to bring down the Kremlin? You "Socialist" specialize in deceiving people and your a good one. Hopefully most will see through your lies for what they are...

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
No offering compensation to the Families of DEAD terrorist does not mean we invade and clean house of the country that may contain a person who does it. you go ahead and think the answer is to invade every country who has an individual encourages acts aginst the us. as we take each country down we creat 2 in the place of it. IRAQ was no threat to the US and you know it.
Remember- WMDs...... Iraq denied having them (anymore) and we have been there for a year now and found none and nobody with any information about them.. On the other hand Korea,( one of the other members of the "Axis of Evil) is over there practicaly saying yes we have WMDs , (ATOMIC BOMBS) what are you going to do about it? and we do what?? Invade Iraq!!!. Now we are talking about giving Korea economic aid so they will end the nuke program... the hypocracy is amaizing. only a few months left though then the AWOL C student who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth is back to tx to get back in the oil buisines.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
No offering compensation to the Families of DEAD terrorist does not mean we invade and clean house of the country that may contain a person who does it. you go ahead and think the answer is to invade every country who has an individual encourages acts aginst the us. as we take each country down we creat 2 in the place of it. IRAQ was no threat to the US and you know it.
Remember- WMDs...... Iraq denied having them (anymore) and we have been there for a year now and found none and nobody with any information about them.. On the other hand Korea,( one of the other members of the "Axis of Evil) is over there practicaly saying yes we have WMDs , (ATOMIC BOMBS) what are you going to do about it? and we do what?? Invade Iraq!!!. Now we are talking about giving Korea economic aid so they will end the nuke program... the hypocracy is amaizing. only a few months left though then the AWOL C student who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth is back to tx to get back in the oil buisines.
.
.
Quoted by the spielmyster,"IRAQ was no threat to the US and you know it."
.
I would suggest you prove otherwise. But you can't can you?
:eek:
.
.
Quoted by the spielmyster,"only a few months left though then the AWOL C student who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth."
.
You really should lay off Queen Anne Richards. She's relegated to history in Texas' politics(I hope).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
sorry guys, I haven't read all of the previous talk...

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Mean_Machine
I agree with you Ranger mom with regard to Sadam being bad and needed to go. but if we use the same criteria we used in invading Iraq, we needed to go into Korea first, Iran is another, Lybia is another Cuba and Syria would have to go on the list ..we cant just take down every bad dictator in the world by force. we are becoming like an impirialist power who does what it wants when it wants regardles to what our allies think.
.
.
So you're saying your guy Kerry would invade North Korea?:eek:
You just said, and I quote, "we needed to go into Korea first, Iran is another, Lybia is another Cuba and Syria would have to go on the list ."
It's not too late to invade there, right?
I wanna hear where Kerry said he would do those things you said we need to do. You're gonna back up your guy now? Or are you just gonna deflect it?:doh: