Who would vote for Kerry

[MonsterMark]

No child left behind has a big problem! It leave the too many behind..

Ah, but you therefore admit that it is helping the plurality of kids, just not all of them. That is why school choice is making such huge inroads in this country. Poor people get a chance to enhance the quality of education for their children. I find it amusing to see that the majority of Democrats and the teachers union are against school choice. Hmmm. Wonder why?

Even our republican administrators don't like what it does for education. The money doesn't get to were it is needed.

So get rid of the people that are sucking it up. Education has to be the most bloated system in this country.

 

[Kbob]

So get rid of the people that are sucking it up. Education has to be the most bloated system in this country.

I agree 100%. Education is a sore spot with me because of all the waste. And the teacher unions fight EVERYTHING to do with education that doesn't pour more money into their system or that require some form of accountability. All I hear from them is more money, more money, more money!

I'll tell you something GW has done for me: he's lowered my taxes.

And isn't it funny how almost everyone knows and admires that line from Kennedy. Yet imagine the backlash any candidate would receive if he/she embraced that ideology today.

Please don't compare Kerry with Kennedy. Kerry may want to be associated with him in any way, but in the words of Benson, "you are no Jack Kennedy."

 

[MonsterMark]

Maybe it could be that you forgot about the money that Bush put directly INTO YOUR POCKET that seem so easy to forget.

Your 2003 Advance Child Tax Credit

</IMG> It seems just yesterday when you got that check in the mail for the Advance Child Tax Credit. How much was it? $400? $800? $1233? Who can remember?!!


How easy we forget............................

 

[MonsterMark]

To me it looks like Clinton is the 1 who started spending alot more on education. Its good to see that Bush hasnt stoped what Clinton started.

Yes Punisher. Clinton proved that you just cannot throw money at a problem.

 

[mespock]

I still don't see the money that is suppose to have gone in my pocket.

If that little check we got a few years ago was suppose to do me wonders I would have rather it been used to help the Deficit, or Social Securtiy, or Medicare etc. The W tax breaks don't reach my level.

My income has not changed in the past 4 years except I am making a few $3K less than I did about 5 years ago.

But I do see spending the has been going on by the present administration, we are spending more to help a country that we blew apart than we are taking care of our own, think about how those billions could have been used in Florida with another huricane on the way. We'd have a lot more left for many other venture.

Try as you want but I cannot see anything good that has happened since the big W took office.

Homeland security would have happened with any person who was in office after 911.

I don't feel safer since but I do feel like my rights have been infringed upon, mainly many of My freedoms given to me in 1776 I feel are gone due to the homeland security act.

The way Mr. W handled going to war in Iraq embarrassed me as an American. I am not proud that my country has the power to destroy any country on the face of this earth, being bully never impressed me. The only respect America received from the world is that we can beat up a small country, and we are not affraid to do it. It's not my way.

But the war issue is not my issues, and Mr. Kerry may not be the right answer but I’ve watched 4 yrs of Mr. W and I’m not impressed.

If he could have impressed me Hey way to go. I don’t think that Mr. Gore would have been any better. I’m still waiting for a real candidate. Someone with real character and leadership skills. But until then I know I don’t want Mr. W.

Nice thing about America we get to vote and state our opinion. My opinion I feel comfortable with someone else in the Oval office.

The other great thing about America is we can have a different opinion than our friend and still be able to be friends. I don’t have to worry that you’re going to bomb my car because I don’t agree.

Good Luck 11/2/04 may the man with the most votes win - Oops that happend already and he lost LOL.

 

[Lincolnman]

Why would anyone elect a man who stole the last election. He didn't win the popular vote. The Supreme Court gave him the presidency. The stock market crashed as soon as he stole the election. We used to have a surplus, now we have a huge deficit. As soon as he took office jobs started laying people off in droves. I could go on and on but the rich republicans and the dumb poor republicans aren't hearing me any way. Go Kerry!!! :L

 

[Kbob]

You guys just keep posting the same exact anti-Bush propaganda that we've addressed over and over. That's your opinion and your right. I don't have the energy to go through everything again. Suffice it to say that I respectfully disagree. You can blame Bush for everything if you want to, if that makes you feel better. Happy voting.

 

[MonsterMark]

I still don't see the money that is suppose to have gone in my pocket.

If that little check we got a few years ago was suppose to do me wonders I would have rather it been used to help the Deficit, or Social Securtiy, or Medicare etc. The W tax breaks don't reach my level.

The US government does not prohibit taxpayers from paying additional funds in to the system, so feel free to pay down the deficit, or prop up Social Security, or pay someone else's Medicare premium with the money George W. gave you.

I would like to know one (1) freedom that you have experienced that was taken away by Bush? And going thru a metal detector doesn't count. You have to do that just to walk into a bar now.

 

[mespock]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...e=1&u=/nm/20040907/ts_nm/economy_schools_dc_3

No child left behind

 

[Lincolnman]

You guys just keep posting the same exact anti-Bush propaganda that we've addressed over and over. That's your opinion and your right. I don't have the energy to go through everything again. Suffice it to say that I respectfully disagree. You can blame Bush for everything if you want to, if that makes you feel better. Happy voting.

The country was better off in Clintons first four years than the Bushman's first four years. DUH! :soapbox:

 

[Kbob]

The country was better off in Clintons first four years than the Bushman's first four years. DUH! :soapbox:

Yeah, it always helps when the World Trade Centers aren't completely destroyed by a major terrorist organization. I remember Clintons first term. He pushed and pushed a socialistic health care reform package that had no hope of passing. Thanks to that the democrats lost control of congress. He wasn't all bad, though. Hey, I got an idea, why don't you vote for him instead? I like your term for GW btw. And welcome to the new millenium.

 

[Lincolnman]

Yeah, it always helps when the World Trade Centers aren't completely destroyed by a major terrorist organization. I remember Clintons first term. He pushed and pushed a socialistic health care reform package that had no hope of passing. Thanks to that the democrats lost control of congress. He wasn't all bad, though. Hey, I got an idea, why don't you vote for him instead? I like your term for GW btw. And welcome to the new millenium.

His healthcare package didn't pass because of the pig headed republicans in congress who don't give a rats ass about the common ordinary taxpaying citizen. They are too busy with their wealthy special interests. You damn right I would vote for Clinton again if I could. Buy the way did you hear our slimey vice president Cheney say that if we elect Kerry there would be a terrorist attack? What a lowlife. He makes Nixon seem like a saint :slam

 

[Kbob]

His healthcare package didn't pass because of the pig headed republicans in congress who don't give a rats ass about the common ordinary taxpaying citizen. They are too busy with their wealthy special interests. You damn right I would vote for Clinton again if I could. Buy the way did you hear our slimey vice president Cheney say that if we elect Kerry there would be a terrorist attack? What a lowlife. He makes Nixon seem like a saint :slam

I, sir, am a common ordinary taxpaying citizen. And the tax cuts I have received due to GW have been a heck of a lot, which is proof to me that at least a rats rear has been given. Clinton screwed the democrats in his first term, plain and simple, and lost the congress. You can deify him if you want, but even Clinton admitted this mistake on Larry King.

I also heard Kerry complaining how Bush spent $200 billion on Iraq. Yet he has also said that we're not spending enough in Iraq to win the war!? Make up your mind Mr. Kerry!

 

[Lincolnman]

I, sir, am a common ordinary taxpaying citizen. And the tax cuts I have received due to GW have been a heck of a lot, which is proof to me that at least a rats rear has been given. Clinton screwed the democrats in his first term, plain and simple, and lost the congress. You can deify him if you want, but even Clinton admitted this mistake on Larry King.

I also heard Kerry complaining how Bush spent $200 billion on Iraq. Yet he has also said that we're not spending enough in Iraq to win the war!? Make up your mind Mr. Kerry!

You sir must be the common ordinary taxpaying citizen who is rich and that is why GW got you a heck of a lot. Us middleclass citizens got "trickel down" money! Clinton made a lot of mistakes, but overall he left the country in good shape. At least there was money in the country's bank when he left. :dj:

 

[MonsterMark]

Government Spending in Current Dollars
​

​

1970: Spending in billions of dollars:
​

Spending as % of GDP: $195.6~~~~~ 19.30%
​

​

1975: Spending in billions of dollars:
​

Spending as % of GDP: $332.3~~~~~ 21.30%
​

​

1980: Spending in billions of dollars:
​

Spending as % of GDP: $590.8~~~~~ 21.60%
​

​

1985: Spending in billions of dollars:
​

Spending as % of GDP: $946.4~~~~~ 22.90%
​

​

1990: Spending in billions of dollars:
​

Spending as % of GDP: $1,253,2~~~~ 21.80%
​

​

1995: Spending in billions of dollars:
​

Spending as % of GDP: $1,515.8~~~~ 20.70%
​

​

2000: Spending in billions of dollars:
​

Spending as % of GDP: $1,788.8~~~~ 18.40%
​

​

2004 (projected): Spending in billions of dollars:
​

Spending as % of GDP: $2,295.0~~~~ 20.00%

As you can see, Clinton was spending the same % of GDP as Bush is, and Clinton didn't have to fight the war on terror.​

 

[Kbob]

You sir must be the common ordinary taxpaying citizen who is rich and that is why GW got you a heck of a lot. Us middleclass citizens got "trickel down" money! Clinton made a lot of mistakes, but overall he left the country in good shape. At least there was money in the country's bank when he left. :dj:

I am middle class. And if you now want to question the integrity of my posts, I'm through with replying to you. Have a good life.

 

[SC_Steve]

You sir must be the common ordinary taxpaying citizen who is rich and that is why GW got you a heck of a lot. Us middleclass citizens got "trickel down" money! Clinton made a lot of mistakes, but overall he left the country in good shape. At least there was money in the country's bank when he left. :dj:

:shrug: I make more each week as a result of GWB and IMO, the tax cut also helped me climb out of debt.

I am barely middle class BTW

and to all of those that blame Bush for the economy.... first off, the economy was heading into a recession before he even took office, secondly we had some big corperate scandals (enron and adelphia... anyone remember that?) and then to top it all off, the attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon.

I mean seriously... if you're going to bitch about something... atleast make some sense. The stock market plumited after 9/11 and came extremely close to crashing. Investors were nervous and it was a very slow climb after that.

Now do I think Clinton was a bad president? Hell no... he may have not been the most moral person but he did ok for us. Is Bush a bad president? Hell no... could things be better? yeah but he was ELECTED just as $hit was about to hit the fan and I really don't think anyone could have done anybetter with the cards that were delt

oh and back to the origional question... will I vote for Kerry? No... I have no idea where he truly stands on anything (except for raising taxes) and that makes me nervous. Atleast with Bush I know what we're getting

-Steve

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Ford announcing pending layoffs. Iraq death toll cresting 1000 (but we're not "at war"......... rrrrrrrriiiiiiiiight!). Bush's unflattering (that's an understatement) ANG records coming to surface (Mr. "Daddy's campaign is more important than our country's security"). Greenspan's gloomy outlook for social security. Yeah, I like the direction GW has this country headed........ NOT!

Kerry can count on my vote.

 

[Kbob]

Ford announcing pending layoffs. Iraq death toll cresting 1000 (but we're not "at war"......... rrrrrrrriiiiiiiiight!). Bush's unflattering (that's an understatement) ANG records coming to surface (Mr. "Daddy's campaign is more important than our country's security"). Greenspan's gloomy outlook for social security. Yeah, I like the direction GW has this country headed........ NOT!

Kerry can count on my vote.

Don't forget the 2, maybe soon to be 3, hurricanes that hit Florida recently. All Bush's fault no doubt

 

[SC_Steve]

lol it sure is... :lol:

 

[MonsterMark]

Ford announcing pending layoffs.

Maybe they should think of making cars people want to buy. That might help their situation.

Iraq death toll cresting 1000 (but we're not "at war"......... rrrrrrrriiiiiiiiight!).

The Jed Foundation is an organization that speaks to the issue of campus suicide. The Jed Foundation says:

• Suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death among college-age students.
  -Suicide attempts pose the greatest life-threatening danger for college women.
  -The rate of suicide among young males has tripled since 1970.
• There are almost 1,100 suicides projected to occur on campuses this year. [emphasis added]

Humm, since Saddam invaded Kuwait, there have been more than 12,000 suicides among young men and women of military recruitment age vs the less than 1200 Killed in Action in the same time frame protecting our freedom. At least our military die with honor instead of taking the easy way out.



​

Bush's unflattering (that's an understatement) ANG records coming to surface (Mr. "Daddy's campaign is more important than our country's security").

Wait, we haven't even got to Mr. Kerry's Paris meeting with the commies, or his presence at the meeting in Kansas City in which the VVAW discussed the assasination of US Senators. We have been thru President Bush's dirty laundry, time to see some of Mr. Kerry's crusties.

Greenspan's gloomy outlook for social security.

Here is the problem with Social Security in a nutshell.
[Social Security has evolved from humble beginnings in 1935 as a program of "forced saving" intended to ensure retirement income for the elderly into its present form: a complex, resource-intensive program that redistributes income across individuals and households based on a wide variety of characteristics. In general, Social Security favors low-wage earners over high-wage earners, older workers over younger workers, women over men, and immigrant workers over U.S.-born workers. The "average" U.S. worker faces a rate of return on contributions that is quite low--less than 2% after adjusting for inflation. By comparison, the real yield on a 10-year inflation-indexed Treasury Bond is currently around 3.5%. In addition to being low, rates of return from Social Security must be viewed as risky because they are subject to change from future political actions that will be needed to ensure long-term solvency of the program. [emphasis added] Under intermediate demographic and economic assumptions, Gokhale (1998) reports that the OASI payroll tax rate must be increased by about 4 percentage points (from 10.7 to 14.6%) to pay for projected benefits on an ongoing basis, i.e., for 75 years and beyond. Alternatively, long-term solvency could be achieved by cutting benefits by 25%. Either action would reduce the real rate of return for the average U.S. worker to around 1%. A tax increase would be disproportionately borne by young workers (who are further from retirement) whereas a cut in benefits would penalize young and old workers in a more even-handed way. While numerous ideas for reforming Social Security exist, none have yet to be formally proposed in the U.S. Congress. Continued delays in addressing Social Security's long-term financing problem will only lead to more painful adjustments in the future.]Kevin Lansing, Economist

Yeah, I like the direction GW has this country headed........ NOT! Kerry can count on my vote.

Hey, more power to you. I think Kerry is a traitor and a treasonist and would be the LAST person I would ever vote for. I'd even reach and say I would vote for Hillary before this guy. Fortunately, the country is figuring this out just-in-time to prevent a worldwide catastrophy.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Thanks for the tangental arguments.

 

[Kbob]

Thanks for the tangental arguments.

Hahaha, the pot calling the kettle black, lol! No . . . really . . . thank you!

 

[MonsterMark]

OK let's try these on for size.

Ford announcing pending layoffs.

Foreign brands are stars in US sales 02/09/2004 08:33

General Motors and Ford reported disappointing US sales on Wednesday, prompting the two largest US car manufacturers to cut planned vehicle production in the fourth quarter, which could hurt profits. Meanwhile, the top two Japanese carmakers had uncharacteristically underwhelming months. Toyota saw sales slip nearly 3%, while Honda's business was off 7.1%.
The sluggishness, however, wasn't felt among all major carmakers reporting August results. The Chrysler Group, the smallest of Detroit's Big Three, said sales rose slightly. Nissan, Suzuki, BM and Volvo of North America were among the foreign brands posting sizable sales increases. [snip]

No. 2 Ford also had a sub-par month, saying overall sales of its Ford, Lincoln and Mercury brands fell 5.9%, again pulled down on the car side. Car sales were off 22%. Truck sales grew one percent.

If Ford could build cars people actually wanted to buy, would there still be layoffs? Let me guess. Bush's fault.

Iraq death toll cresting 1000 (but we're not "at war"......... rrrrrrrriiiiiiiiight!).

Despite headlines, global war casualties decline
Posted on Tuesday, August 31 @ 09:45:00

(AP) -- The chilling sights and sounds of war fill newspapers and television screens worldwide, but war itself is in decline, peace researchers report.

In fact, the number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meantime, are growing in number.

"International engagement is blossoming," said American scholar Monty G. Marshall. "There's been an enormous amount of activity to try to end these conflicts."

For months the battle reports and casualty tolls from Iraq and Afghanistan have put war in the headlines, but Swedish and Canadian non-governmental groups tracking armed conflict globally find a general decline in numbers from peaks in the 1990's.

The authoritative Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in a 2004 Yearbook report obtained by The Associated Press in advance of publication, says 19 major armed conflicts were under way worldwide in 2003, a sharp drop from 33 wars counted in 1991.

The Canadian organization Project Ploughshares, using broader criteria to define armed conflict, says in its new annual report that the number of conflicts declined to 36 in 2003, from a peak of 44 in 1995.

The Stockholm institute counts continuing wars that have produced 1,000 or more battle-related deaths in any single year. Project Ploughshares counts any armed conflict that produces 1,000 such deaths cumulatively.

The Stockholm report, to be released in September, notes three wars ended as of 2003 -- in Angola, Rwanda and Somalia -- and a fourth, the separatist war in India's Assam state, was dropped from the "major" category after casualties were recalculated.

It lists three new wars in 2003 -- in Liberia and in Sudan's western region of Darfur, along with the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq. These joined such long-running conflicts as the Kashmiri insurgency in India, the leftist guerrilla war in Colombia, and the separatist war in Russia's Chechnya region.

Other major armed conflicts listed by the Stockholm researchers were in Algeria, Burundi, Peru, Indonesia's Aceh province, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Israel, and Turkey. Their list also includes the U.S.-al-Qaeda war, mainly in Afghanistan, the unresolved India-Pakistan conflict, and two insurgencies in the Philippines.

"Not only are the numbers declining, but the intensity" -- the bloodshed in each conflict -- "is declining," said Marshall, founder of a University of Maryland program studying political violence.

The continuing wars in Algeria, Chechnya and Turkey are among those that have subsided into low-intensity conflicts. At Canada's University of British Columbia, scholars at the Human Security Center are quantifying this by tackling the difficult task of calculating war casualties worldwide for their Human Security Report, to be released late in 2004.

Look, most of the world considers these "WARS", as do the majority of Americans. But Hmmm, if you look closely, there is less worldwide bloodshed under Bush than there was under Clinton! Compare the '95 and '03 numbers. How can that be explained?

Bush's unflattering (that's an understatement) ANG records coming to surface (Mr. "Daddy's campaign is more important than our country's security").

This article appears in the March 8, 2004, issue of National Review.

Ask retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed whether the press has accurately reported what he said about George W. Bush, and you'll get an earful. "No, I don't think they have," he begins. Turnipseed, the former head of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group of the Alabama Air National Guard, was widely quoted as saying he never saw Bush in Alabama in 1972, and if the future president had been there, he would remember. In fact, Turnipseed says, he doesn't recall whether Bush was there or not; the young flier, then a complete unknown in Alabama, was never part of the 900-man 187th, so Turnipseed wouldn't have had much reason to notice him. But most reporters haven't been interested in Turnipseed's best recollection. "They don't understand the Guard, they don't want to understand the Guard, and they hate Bush," he says. "So when I say, ‘There's a good possibility that Bush showed up,' why would they put that in their articles?"[snip]

FOUR YEARS OF FLYING

The controversy over Bush's service centers on what his critics call "the period in question," that is, the time from May 1972 until May 1973. What is not mentioned as often is that that period was in fact Bush's fifth year in the Guard, one that followed four years of often intense service.

Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training — a full-time job — at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training — again, full time — at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training — full time — at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Counting other, shorter, postings in between, by the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty.

Certified to fly the F-102 fighter plane, Bush then began a period of frequent — usually weekly — flying. The F-102 was designed to shoot down other fighter planes, and the missions Bush flew were training flights, mostly over the Gulf of Mexico and often at night, in which pilots took turns being the predator and the prey."If you're going to practice how to shoot down another airplane, then you have to have another airplane up there to work on," recalls retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. "He'd be the target for the first half of the mission, and then we'd switch."

During that period Bush's superiors gave him consistently high ratings as a pilot. "Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer," wrote one in a 1972 evaluation. Another evaluation, in 1971, called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a third rating, in 1970, said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was also "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."


Bush put in over 5 years in the ANG. Trained over 80 weeks. Flew over 330 hours. In '71, the Air National Guard had an overabundance of pilots and the war was winding down. So it was customary to allow guardmans with many years of service to move on to other events in their lives.

Bush served honorably and got an honorable discharge 6 months after exiting the Guard.

Contrast that with Kerry who served 1 and 1/3 tours (although he always says 2 tours, which is not accurate), then came home, joined a bunch of hippies protesting the war; threw away his unearned medals; plotted with the enemy; stole the honor all all who served before and after him; enabled the communists to slaughter millions of people after the US pulled out; has his pictured framed as a hero in a North Vietnam museum; is a self-confessed war criminal who should actually be in jail, lies and flip-flops to this day; married into wealth not once, but twice; has never had a real job and the one he has he doesn't bother to show up at to vote when required and spent 20 years in the Senate with no legislation to his name. Should I go on and on?


And here we are whining about the fact that Bush went to work on a political campaign after serving 4 years in the ANG? Give me a break.

Greenspan's gloomy outlook for social security. Yeah, I like the direction GW has this country headed........ NOT!

I'll pass, already covered.

Kerry can count on my vote.

I think many people will be quite unhappy come election day. Can't wait to see the faces on the major news anchors as they have to report the sweep.

 

[Lincolnman]

Government Spending in Current Dollars
​

​

1970: Spending in billions of dollars:
​

Spending as % of GDP: $195.6~~~~~ 19.30%
​

​

1975: Spending in billions of dollars:
​

Spending as % of GDP: $332.3~~~~~ 21.30%
​

​

1980: Spending in billions of dollars:
​

Spending as % of GDP: $590.8~~~~~ 21.60%
​

​

1985: Spending in billions of dollars:
​

Spending as % of GDP: $946.4~~~~~ 22.90%
​

​

1990: Spending in billions of dollars:
​

Spending as % of GDP: $1,253,2~~~~ 21.80%
​

​

1995: Spending in billions of dollars:
​

Spending as % of GDP: $1,515.8~~~~ 20.70%
​

​

2000: Spending in billions of dollars:
​

Spending as % of GDP: $1,788.8~~~~ 18.40%
​

​

2004 (projected): Spending in billions of dollars:
​

Spending as % of GDP: $2,295.0~~~~ 20.00%

As you can see, Clinton was spending the same % of GDP as Bush is, and Clinton didn't have to fight the war on terror.​

Clinton also didn't start a war in Iraq that was totally insane. You have proven my point. :headbang: