# The Next US President



## BlueDragon1981 (Jul 5, 2004)

Now this is not to get into a big debate or anything. I just want a name and perhaps a small reason why, but be careful, politics are touchy and I don't want any fighting.

 So who do you want for next President

 Bush :idunno:
 Kerry  
 Other


----------



## Kane (Jul 6, 2004)

Bush all the way!


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 6, 2004)

Other - is she running?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 6, 2004)

I'm voting Kerry.  At this point, anything over Dubya.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Jul 6, 2004)

I'm not fond of any of the them, but I will vote Kerry over Bush any day.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 6, 2004)

Ditto


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 6, 2004)

jesse ventura! if he would run...........


----------



## OUMoose (Jul 6, 2004)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> jesse ventura! if he would run...........



Hell ya!  I'd second that!

Then again, he would just take votes away from Kerry I think, so that would be bad.  

As I said before, I'm not pro-Kerry, but i'm certainly anti-bush.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 6, 2004)

Kerry.  Not only do I think Dubya is the worst President we've had as a nation, I actually actively like Kerry.  I think he has integrity, and I'm pretty cynical.  Nobody's perfect, but I think he does well.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 6, 2004)

Personally, I would have preferred Howard Dean as a Democratic nominee (while I myself am a registered independent) --- but John Kerry it is. With John Edwards as his running mate, I think Kerry has a damn fine shot.


----------



## Ping898 (Jul 6, 2004)

Dubya seriously scares me  :uhohh: ....him and Cheney...I think they could seriously destroy the world without even trying.   Kerry has got my vote.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 6, 2004)

Kerry.  I like his record.  And I agree that GW Bush is the worst president this country has ever had.


----------



## Sailor (Jul 6, 2004)

Anyone other then Bush...so Kerry it is


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 6, 2004)

Wow - so, if we throw in my vote for Kerry (cuz I don't think Ms. Jane Other is running), so far we are at:

 9 for Kerry
 1 for Bush

 Interesting numbers!!!!  I LIKE IT!!!
artyon:artyon:


----------



## ParrotheadTPA (Jul 6, 2004)

Tough one.  I really don't like Kerry or Bush.  I disliked Bush's brother Jeb so much that I worked on the McBride campaign when he got re-elected gov. of FL.  Who's the Libertarian candidate again?  j/k...I liked Edwards, so with Kerry choosing him as a running mate I might have to rethink things.


----------



## Nightingale (Jul 7, 2004)

Kerry


----------



## Melissa426 (Jul 7, 2004)

I was strongly leaning towards Kerry till yesterday when he picked Edwards as his running mate. No way do I want Edwards in the White House.
Now, I got to think things over again.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 7, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> I was strongly leaning towards Kerry till yesterday when he picked Edwards as his running mate. No way do I want Edwards in the White House.
> Now, I got to think things over again.


I'm curious ... why?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 7, 2004)

Kerry.  He wasn't my first pick, but I'll go with him.

I have a huge list of reasons for getting read of George W...leading them all is that he's ignorant.  He squandered what could have been a firsr rate education.  He can't speak extemporaneously and in doing so gives the impression that he is a buffoon. 

I borrow the "buffoon" description from my surgeon, a Republican, who described Dubya thus.  A Republican, note.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Melissa426 (Jul 7, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I'm curious ... why?


 


John Edwards made his money as a trial lawyer, suing corporations and doctors, and winning millions of dollars for his himself and his clients.  Does that make him a great lawyer? I am sure it does.

Eat too much at McDonald's and now you're fat?  Go ahead and sue.
Your kid didn't make the cheerleading squad?  Go ahead and sue.
You smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for 30 years and now have lung cancer?  Go ahead and sue.

Malpractice insurance rates are skyrocketing, and this has created a real crisis in many areas.   Edwards blames the insurance companys.  I blame the trial lawyers, who are preying on folks trying to hit the medical or corporate malpractice lottery/jackpot.   Many companies or physicians settle "frivolous" lawsuits, just so they don't have to waste their time defending them. 

There will be no real tort reform with John Edwards in office. After all, he has benefitted greatly from the current system. The American Trial Lawyers Association couldn't be happier that he is running for VP 

I am not, repeat NOT, saying that they are not _some_ people who have been seriously injured due to corporate or medical malfeasance.  

Yes, this issue is serious enough to make me want to consider if John Edwards should be that close to the presidency.


----------



## dubljay (Jul 7, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> John Edwards made his money as a trial lawyer, suing corporations and doctors, and winning millions of dollars for his himself and his clients. Does that make him a great lawyer? I am sure it does.
> 
> Eat too much at McDonald's and now you're fat?  Go ahead and sue.
> Your kid didn't make the cheerleading squad?  Go ahead and sue.
> ...


 
 well said


----------



## KungFuWarrior (Jul 8, 2004)

Myself yup thats right im runnin and votin for me. LoL :ultracool


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 8, 2004)

I don't like republicans or democrats.The present "party" system sucks. I think we need the Blue Collar Party....I would rather vote for the guy who collects money in my parking lot! We have way too many "proffesional" politicians.
 As one man said "I can't read a pie chart or a bar graph,but I can tell you about the taxes on my farm doubling every year for the last 5 years.....and for what? nothing has changed except my accountants pay."


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 8, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> John Edwards made his money as a trial lawyer, suing corporations and doctors, and winning millions of dollars for his himself and his clients. Does that make him a great lawyer? I am sure it does.
> 
> Eat too much at McDonald's and now you're fat? Go ahead and sue.
> Your kid didn't make the cheerleading squad? Go ahead and sue.
> ...


Thank you. 

While I have very little knowledge concerning Edwards litigation history, I am curious if you know of any specific lawsuits that Senator Edwards has fought that you would consider frivolous and which brought him and his clients millions?

Yesterday, I heard a commentary from David Brooks of the New York Times stating that the 'Trial Lawyers' issue, in general, did not affect the Edwards primary campaign negatively, because he so effectively tells the story of his clients; an individual who was subject to injustice due to corporate negligence, or a devious slob looking to cash in a litigious lottery ticket, depending on your point of view.

Should an individual, who feels he is the subject of injustice, have recourse against a corporation other than to boycott the products and services of that corporation? What avenues of recourse do you feel should be appropriate?

Thanks. Mike

P.S. Did Edwards litigate against McDonalds? Did he represent a student cut from a cheerleading squad? Did he file suit against tobacco companies for one of those companies' consumers? Or are these just hypothetical examples you cite?


----------



## Melissa426 (Jul 8, 2004)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> Now this is not to get into a big debate or anything. I just want a name and perhaps a small reason why, but be careful, politics are touchy and I don't want any fighting.
> 
> So who do you want for next President
> 
> ...


I quoted the original thread to remind myself that I am not here to debate, just to offer an opinion.

With a minimal web search, you can find John Edwards tooting his own horn about the cases he has won over the years.  I don't blame John Edwards; he is not the whole problem, just part of it.  And I don't see that he would really be willing to find a  solution, because he has benefitted greatly from the current system.

I don't believe the tort system needs to be abandoned. I believe it needs to be _reformed._


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 8, 2004)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> As one man said "I can't read a pie chart or a bar graph,but I can tell you about the taxes on my farm doubling every year for the last 5 years.....and for what? nothing has changed except my accountants pay."


I'm curious .. what one man said this?

And what does he mean when he says the taxes on his farm doubled every year for the last 5 years? I would like to see those numbers. 

Is he referring to Federal Taxes, State Taxes, Local Taxes. 
Is he referring to the loss of Tax Breaks?
Is he referring to a 'Tax Shift' - Federal Taxes Down - Local Taxes Up.

I believe statements like this are dubious. 

Thanks for contributing - Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 8, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> John Edwards made his money as a trial lawyer, suing corporations and doctors, and winning millions of dollars for his himself and his clients.  Does that make him a great lawyer? I am sure it does.
> 
> Eat too much at McDonald's and now you're fat?  Go ahead and sue.
> Your kid didn't make the cheerleading squad?  Go ahead and sue.
> You smoked a pack of cigarettes a day for 30 years and now have lung cancer?  Go ahead and sue.




Can you tell us the results of the litigation against McDonald's regarding charges of obesity?  What was Edwards' role in it?  How did he handle the cheerleading case?  What was his role in the smoking litigation?  How did that play in his being elected senator to a big tobacco state?  Do you see where I'm going with this?

The notion of "frivolous lawsuits" has merit...there are indeed stupid suits filed.  And there are just suits filed.   But the topic here concerns the next President/Vice President.  If you want to start a thread on the abuses of litigation, I'll jump in and play.  Otherwise, unless you can specifically give an argument that Edwards abused his position as a trial lawyer, what you posted is irrelevant to the topic at hand and stereotypes Edwards without justification.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 8, 2004)

This might be a shock to everyone, but the "frivolous lawsuits" epidemic has less to do with our legal system being in need of reform --- and more to do with our culture being in need of reform.

The alleviation of personal responsibility and accountability, and the worship of the finite ego is not limited to these lawsuits.

"Victim-chic" cultural studies. Identity politics. Political correctness. "Reader-response" literary theory. UFO abductions (this super-advanced alien race wants nothing more than to look at ME!). Moral relativism (don't tell me what to do!). Alternative "spiritualities" that emphasize "liberating" "me" and/or "self-improvement" (as opposed to transcending the ego). Ecophilosophy emphasizing how we are going to "save the Goddess/Gaia" (where it's usually the other way around in most religions). Extremist social constructivism (in which the omnipotent "cultural self" creates all realities).

So on and so on.... is any of this really a surprise??


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 8, 2004)

The quote came from...like him or not....jesse ventura. It was at the university of minnesota when he was there for a speaking engagment when he was just a council member.Not running for governor.

 I did not catch the specification of which taxes. Didn't need too personally.
Its all a matter of "he who can BUY the most toys,wins"..or sling the most mud.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 8, 2004)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> The quote came from...like him or not....jesse ventura. It was at the university of minnesota when he was there for a speaking engagment when he was just a council member.Not running for governor.
> 
> I did not catch the specification of which taxes. Didn't need too personally.
> Its all a matter of "he who can BUY the most toys,wins"..or sling the most mud.


I wonder if Jesse Venture ever actually owned a farm?

Of course, Hyperbole is useful in political discuss, especially to enflame constituents. Of course, if my property taxes went from one thousand dollars a year to sixteen thousand dollars a year ... I'd be upset too ... but I might learn to read a pie chart, if it would help.

Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 8, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> This might be a shock to everyone, but the "frivolous lawsuits" epidemic has less to do with our legal system being in need of reform --- and more to do with our culture being in need of reform.
> 
> 
> So on and so on.... is any of this really a surprise??




This seems to be of interest to people.  I opened a thread on it.  We don't need to discuss it on this thread....though if anyone wants to bring Edwards record in this case into the discussion, it seems reasonable to me.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Baytor (Jul 8, 2004)

ROSS PEROT!


----------



## Melissa426 (Jul 8, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Can you tell us the results of the litigation against McDonald's regarding charges of obesity? What was Edwards' role in it? How did he handle the cheerleading case? What was his role in the smoking litigation? How did that play in his being elected senator to a big tobacco state? Do you see where I'm going with this?
> 
> The notion of "frivolous lawsuits" has merit...there are indeed stupid suits filed. And there are just suits filed. But the topic here concerns the next President/Vice President. If you want to start a thread on the abuses of litigation, I'll jump in and play. Otherwise, unless you can specifically give an argument that Edwards abused his position as a trial lawyer, what you posted is irrelevant to the topic at hand and stereotypes Edwards without justification.
> 
> ...


The original question was who would you vote for and why.  My answer was probably Kerry, but I wasn't so hip on Edwards.
I was responding to Michael Edward, who asked me why I wasn't sure I didn't want to vote for a Kerry/Edwards ticket.
I was trying to be polite by not ignoring Michael Edward.
I was not trying to start a debate about frivolous lawsuits.

Everything you said in your above post is true.

 But, I stand by my opinion that I don't believe Edwards would pass anying meaningful tort reforms, an issue I consider critical for America's future.
I am not so sure I want another 4 years of Bush either ( but don't ask me why, I am not going to get into that :ultracool !)

Regards, 
Melissa:asian:


----------



## auxprix (Jul 9, 2004)

Ah, I can offer a little insight.

#1) Mcdonnald's lawsuits:

There were two lawsuits against the fast food industry. One was class action of a bunch of parents who had morbidly obese children (I think there were 12) who sued McD's. The other was an immagrant worker for arbys (or was it KFC?) who said that his heart trouble stemmed from eating various fast food for years. So it was him against a number of chains. Both legal actions were thown out of court for mainly 2 reasons. 1) it was the peoples choice to eat foods that had public documentation revealing it's nutritional value. 2) They couldn't prove that their problems were a direct result of eating fast food.

I just happen to have been doing a research project in the time that all this came to light.

#2) Yes, ventura ownes a good plot of land. I believe it's a ranch north of Minneapolis where he rides horseback and plays with his numerous assult weapons (I actually saw this on a news program, not making it up).

#3) I hear alot of ventura praise. In my experience as a Minnesotan, it seems like most of us have a very sour taste of the guy. His approval was very low when he left office. I can't speak for all the people in my state, but in my opinion he is an egotistical self promoter who took alot of creadit for things he had nothing to do with.

Oh, and to tie it into the subject. I'll vote Kerry, but I'm not crazy about Edwards (but he can't do much damage as a VP. However, I may have said the same thing about Cheney :erg: )


----------



## Baytor (Jul 9, 2004)

auxprix said:
			
		

> #3) I hear alot of ventura praise. In my experience as a Minnesotan, it seems like most of us have a very sour taste of the guy. His approval was very low when he left office. I can't speak for all the people in my state, but in my opinion he is an egotistical self promoter who took alot of creadit for things he had nothing to do with.


I'm also from Minnesota, and this is right on, in my opinion.


----------



## TonyM. (Jul 9, 2004)

Right now I'd vote for Barney Fife over the last seven presidents I've endured.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 9, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> John Edwards made his money as a trial lawyer, suing corporations and doctors, and winning millions of dollars for his himself and his clients.  Does that make him a great lawyer? I am sure it does.
> 
> Eat too much at McDonald's and now you're fat?  Go ahead and sue.
> Your kid didn't make the cheerleading squad?  Go ahead and sue.
> ...



These are sort of broad generalizations; some I can agree with, however, where is there record that Edwards made his money off of "frivilous" law suits? 

No offense, but these are attacks more on our legal system rather then Edwards himself. I would take your points about Edwards with more validity if you had more evidence against him, rather then generalizations about his career, or the legal system. Not voting for someone because they are a trial lawyer is akin to not voting for someone because they are a stock broker, an insurance agent, or a cop, because you distrust "stock brokers," "insurance agents," or "cops." And, under that logic, you couldn't vote Bush either because him and all his buddies also made money under our current system, so how could we expect tort reform from them?

(this is not directed towards you Melissa, as I am not saying you are conservative) I think much of the conservative population under Bush has lost their ability to argue coherently and logically. An examples of an interesting (and illogical) habit I have seen...

Conservatives under Bush seem very good at making insults that aren't actually insults, thereby "labeling" people, and getting the unthinking public to rally around that. If conservative PR says anything sneeringly, like so-and-so is "liberal" or "french" or a "trial lawyer," then some people go out like robots and honestly argue "I can't vote for blah...because blah is a 'liberal' or blah is a 'french lover'" It's ridicules. Our public is so gordamm lazy that we buy these illogical falicies because someone "important said them," or someone put in on da...der... TV. And, if you don't think this bullcrap isn't working for them, then let me tell you a story. Wanna know how our Attorney General in MI., Mike Cox, got elected? He was down in the polls against Sen. Gary Peters until a special ad came out. The premises of the add was "Can you trust Gary Peters, when he was a STOCK BROKER!?"(add in creepy music along with that sentence). People are so frikin retarded, that this illogical attack worked, and he came up in the polls to win the election by a small margin. 

I guess I'll just sit back and wait for american to start thinking critically.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 9, 2004)

IamBaytor said:
			
		

> I'm also from Minnesota, and this is right on, in my opinion.



heh...I find this hilarious. I frequently run into people who are not from Minnesota who talk about how great Ventura is. Then I ask them what he has done in office that they like, and they can't give me a coherent answer.

Fun fun fun... :supcool:


----------



## TwistofFat (Jul 9, 2004)

The next president should be drafted..."as you open the non-descript yet formal looking Fed Government envelope thinking, I did'nt really cheat on my taxes Tooo badly.  What the hell is this?  I am the 42nd President!  S*&^t, how did that happen?  I wasn't even registered to vote!"...


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Jul 9, 2004)

I appreciate the posts but keep on track. Just say who you want for President.

Kerry
Bush
Other (I think its Nader again)

I don't want a debate starting...just who you are voting for. (I would like a blue collar honest person to run but face it...anyone exposed to politics starts acting like well a "Politicians")


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 9, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> The next president should be drafted..."as you open the non-descript yet formal looking Fed Government envelope thinking, I did'nt really cheat on my taxes Tooo badly. What the hell is this? I am the 42nd President! S*&^t, how did that happen? I wasn't even registered to vote!"...


William Jefferson Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States.
George Walker Bush is the 43rd President of the United States.

If you are drafted ... you will be number 44..... Go for it.

Mike


----------



## TwistofFat (Jul 9, 2004)

Mike,


Sorry for the slip-up, I was working.  G. Bush is the 42nd and by the draft you might be the 43rd - for the record.

Watch your mail box!


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 11, 2004)

I should be president.


----------



## Gary Crawford (Jul 11, 2004)

I should be KING-Then there would be no more politics


----------



## Gary Crawford (Jul 11, 2004)

until I am overthrown-which would take about 20 minutes into my adminisrtation!lol!


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 11, 2004)

Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> I should be KING-Then there would be no more politics


In my senior year of high school, during class elections, one of my colleagues from our Latin II class put himself on the class ballot ... not as class president, but as class deity. It was great. He lost. - Mike


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 11, 2004)

I want to be Q!


----------



## Mark Weiser (Jul 12, 2004)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - [size=-1]A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda. [/size]

THERE YOU HAVE IT!!! George Bush does not want to give up his throne lol. All Hail King Bush lol


----------



## TwistofFat (Jul 12, 2004)

I thought Gary Crawford was king?!!!


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 12, 2004)

> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - [size=-1]A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda. [/size]
> 
> THERE YOU HAVE IT!!! George Bush does not want to give up his throne lol. All Hail King Bush lol


 I'm not laughing - he'd do it to retain power indefinetly.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 12, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I'm not laughing - he'd do it to retain power indefinetly.


To which, we could say :

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 

Mike


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 12, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


 Sounds like common sense to me....


----------



## Gary Crawford (Jul 12, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> I thought Gary Crawford was king?!!!


SHHH! I am,everyone is in denial!


----------



## Brother John (Jul 13, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - [size=-1]A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda. [/size]
> 
> THERE YOU HAVE IT!!! George Bush does not want to give up his throne lol. All Hail King Bush lol


You are misrepresenting this Mark.
this was first proposed by a Democrat, that IF a state (lets say a big one, like New York again) gets BOMBED or some-such by those that we know:
A: Want to.
B: Plan to disrupt the election.
C: Can...

On or very near election day
It would seriously disrupt the election process. It would probably mean the exclusion of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of citizen's votes.
NOT GOOD.
The Democrat, I believe one working with homeland security or the security council, suggested this "What if?" scenario, the President told a panel to look into it and they did and found that the authors of the constitution didn't take Islamic Terrorist Bombs into account when drafting it.
go figure.

Besides, it's NOT talking about eliminating the election...just postponing it by days or weeks to ensure that it's done right.

Think of it like this: 
1: Large cities traditionally support Democrats more than Republicans, encumbant or not. 
2: Large cities are the MOST logical/predictable targets for the sleeper cells that are thought to be in the USA planning their mayhem. (ie; the Twin Towers, The UN building, Madrid, London...etc.) This way their efforts effect the greatest numbers possible.
3: These Islamic Terrorists in question have already used their terror-tactics to disrupt major elections in another country (Spain, Madrid)...and they succeeded completely!
(I'm sure a person who's done as much research on terrorism tactics as you have would know these things already Mark)

SO: If President Bush is pulling a scam...the only votes it will go to protect will largly be those of Democrats.
Fact.

I'd want this change, NO MATTER who the President is.
It's not President Bush being "powerhungry"...
It's President Bush being fair.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Mark Weiser (Jul 13, 2004)

Well John I was hoping for a response to the little excerpt I posted and I got one alright lol. 

The problem with many things in life you have to take the whole picture and burn off the excess and see what is left. The media spin on the article was very apparent lol. The fine line between Democrats and Republicans are becoming more and more blurred and of coursee the Media will print what we as the public want to read. Since the Moore movie came out was and is so successful anything Anti Bush will sell Papers. 

I just added the last line to get things stirred. I am a Republican myself so I saw the statement as absoultely hysterical lol in reference to Bush as King lol. Reminded me of some funny fables I read as a child. 

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 13, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> You are misrepresenting this Mark.
> this was first proposed by a Democrat,


John, I have seen the reports that this idea was floated by 'Deforest Blake Soaries Jr', Who was appointed to the head of the Election Assistance Commission by President Bush (a Republican). Earlier, he was appointed to the position of Secretary of State for the State of New Jersey by Christie Todd Whitman (also a Republican).

I see no reference to his party affiliation in his biography. He does have a powerful biography. 

http://www.eac.gov/soaries.asp?format=none

I hope he is paying as much attention to the Diebold voting machines.

Mike


----------



## qizmoduis (Jul 13, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> You are misrepresenting this Mark.
> this was first proposed by a Democrat...



Errr...no.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/

The proposer is a Bush appointee to the election commission who was a failed GOP candidate for Congress.

This is, of course, yet another attempt by Bush and his folks to manipulate the process to maintain his grip on ill-gotten and badly abused power.  All joking aside, he DOES behave like a king, and not as an elected representative (which he isn't).  He really needs to go.


----------



## Brother John (Jul 13, 2004)

Okay.

The general media is very heavily _slanted_ anymore.

I was a Democrat before I went to College. While in College I took a journalism class on "Detecting, avoiding and exposing bias". Then I took another class in the psyche department called "Deception in advertising". After a great deal of scrutiny of the media during the Bush/Gore run I HAD to become a Republican!!!! Besides, I really investigated the parties and realized that my beliefs were consevative Republican anyway...it fit better.

My vote is for *President Bush.*
He's intelligent, _good speaker or not._
He's Honest.
He's got a _wonderful_ work ethic.
He's a man of faith.
He's vastly responsible for the great economic turn around that our country is currently enjoying! (an economic resession that began BEFORE he took office and sped up greatly due to the terrorist attack on our soil)
He's *tough* on terrorism.
He did the *RIGHT* thing in Iraq, and still is.
He *HAS* restored the dignity and honor  of the oval office.

I don't agree with 100% of what he has done or proposes to do. I really don't. But overall, I feel that President Bush is a fine President. 

Then there's Kerry. _SCARRY KERRY!!!_
National Journal Named Kerry Most Liberal Congressional Dem Running For President.
In 2003, Kerry Voted With Kennedy 93% Of The Time.   
Kerry Has Voted At Least 350 Times For Higher Taxes. :btg: 
Kerry Voted At Least Six Times Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortions.
Kerry Has Voted At Least Three Times Against Requiring Parental Consent/Notification For Minors Abortion.
Kerry Voted To Allow Federal Funding Of Abortions And To Provide Abortion Counseling In Federally-Funded Clinics.  (There's where he wants YOUR extra tax money for, paying for children's abortion procedures)
*GET THIS:  * Kerry says that he's all about "Fiscal responsibility", yet he's voted 350 times for a major HIKE in taxes!!!
BUT In September 2001, Kerry Said _We Should Not Raise Taxes In An Economic Downturn._  The first priority is the economy of our nation.  And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending.  We shouldnt do either. ((But he did both)) We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, ((Yet he voted to, and voted against the tax break that DID help)) but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . . you dont want to raise taxes.  (NBCs Meet The Press, 9/2/01)
*THEN:* in classic Kerry style: In December 2002, Kerry Flip-Flopped.  NBCS TIM RUSSERT: Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?  KERRY: Well, I wouldnt take away from people whove already been given their tax cut . . . . What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts. . . .  RUSSERT: So the tax cut thats scheduled to be implemented in the coming years . . . .  KERRY: No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesnt make economic sense.  RUSSERT: Now, this is a change, because let me show you what you said in September of 2001 when I asked you the very same question.  (NBCs Meet The Press, 12/1/02) 
HUH? :idunno: 
Kerry Twice Voted Against Allowing Self-Employed Individuals To Fully Deduct Cost Of Their Health Insurance On Their Federal Taxes.
Kerry Twice Voted Against Bill Providing $10 Billion Funding For State Medicaid Programs.
Kerrys Health Care Plan Could Cost As Much As $895 Billion Over 10 Years And Still Would Not Cover All Currently Uninsured Individuals.
Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported Presidents Action In Iraq. Kerry Later Claimed He Voted To Threaten Use Of Force In Iraq. FLIP FLOP!
Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years.
In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began.
But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge.
Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With Whatever Number Of Dollars It Took.  NBCS TIM RUSSERT: Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?  SEN. JOHN KERRY: No. I think we should increase it.  RUSSERT: Increase funding?  KERRY: Yes.  RUSSERT: By how much?  KERRY: By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim. 
THEN: Then Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package.

I Could go on and on. There's tuns of FACTS that hurt Kerry's viability as a President.
Don't even get me started on Edwards!!!
I'm not spouting hyperbole, I'm giving facts that can be looked up by anyone. 

You guys want to Bush Bash?
OK. It's your right. Infact it's rather shiek to do so.
too bad.


Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Jul 13, 2004)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Errr...no.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/
> 
> ...



Errr...no WHAT? I said a few things, one generalize 'no' isn't very clear.
You are correct, I was wrong. It wasn't a democrat who first proposed it. I did hear a democrat on TV backing it...thought it was his idea. Sorry. Other than that, my statement was correct. 
The one who 'thought' of it was Soaries. 
Here's a copy of the article from that web-site you posted:
"sources tell NEWSWEEK, Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place. Justice was specifically asked to review a recent letter to Ridge from DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Soaries noted that, while a primary election in New York on September 11, 2001, was quickly suspended by that state's Board of Elections after the attacks that morning, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election." Soaries, a Bush appointee who two years ago was an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Congress, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to make such a call. Homeland officials say that as drastic as such proposals sound, they are taking them seriouslyalong with other possible contingency plans in the event of an election-eve or Election Day attack. "We are reviewing the issue to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election," says Brian Roehrkasse, a Homeland spokesman."

Errr...no. President Bush was legally elected to the Presidency by means of the system established in the US Constitution.

Errr...no. It's not 





> yet another attempt by Bush and his folks to manipulate the process to maintain his grip


It's trying to be consistant. Like I said, if it's protecting votes...so what. They'd most likely be inner city votes...which is predominantly Democrat...so he'd be protecting Democrat voters. Hardly seems so devious to me.



> he DOES behave like a king,


Errr...no.
how?
How does President Bush do this, give more than an open accusation to support your premise. 
I propose that this is your liberal-media spoon-fed bias, well regurgitated....but lacking fact or substance.

President Bush acts in the best interest of our country.
Like him or not.


Your Brother
John


----------



## TwistofFat (Jul 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> William Jefferson Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States.
> George Walker Bush is the 43rd President of the United States.
> 
> If you are drafted ... you will be number 44..... Go for it.
> ...


Mike - should have clairified...if you count Stephen "Grover" Cleveland as the 22nd and the 24th then you are right.  GWB is the 43 office holder (but 42nd man).


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 13, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> Mike - should have clairified...if you count Stephen "Grover" Cleveland as the 22nd and the 24th then you are right. GWB is the 43 office holder (but 42nd man).


Hey, that's right. Cool. I forgot about Cleveland being elected to non-successive terms.

I really hope I am drafted. I could then show Brother John what a real Liberal looks like. Psst! - He thinks Kerry is Scary. <ha>.

Mike


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 13, 2004)

> My vote is for *President Bush.*
> He's intelligent, _good speaker or not._
> He's Honest.
> He's got a _wonderful_ work ethic.
> ...


Brother John, I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with you on every single one of these points.  Dubya has taken more vacation time than any President in my memory.  He has a terrible work ethic.  He's crafty, but I don't think he is inteliigent - or maybe not wise.  I don't think he's at all honest - you can't get a straight answer out of him.  

Um, what economic turn around is that?

He completely bungled Iraq, and still is - we need more troops there, our troops are overextended and being forced to remain longer than they were deployed for, and he's cut their pay and benefits while they have been in Iraq.

He has destroyed the dignity and honor of the Oval Office - it has become a dirty CEO's office where industry and wealthy cronies get to have their say, and the government agencies that are suppossed to be protecting Americans have been put under the lead of people who want to please industried instead.

I know this thread was not started to be a big debate, but I couldn't let this go.  GW Bush is the worst President our country has ever seen.


----------



## TwistofFat (Jul 13, 2004)

Wow,

This is getting heated.  Who tought that politics would create such anger?  My thought on this whole discussion is that while the government creates these violent divisions within the country (eg, have you ever examined the congressional districts maps that run like hot wax - does anyone know what district you are in? Espescially if you move to a new state!).  I do not mean conspiricy stuff (black helos), just the result of the a$$ho;es that want to hold onto power once they get it - whatever party.  "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"...

I have friends for years that I have trained with that are demo/repub and yet we still manage to co-exist (with good natured ribbing). But if you read the foriegn press (bbc, yahoo.uk, etc), the world thinks we are on the edge of civil war - due mostly to the Political volume (mostly in US media).  I do not have any relationships that began with me asking what political party they belong to. 

I do not think George Bush is the best or worst president in history.  The reality is I feed my family, I lift my own weights, do my on katas, care for my own elderly parents...
I simply do not have time to let these SOB's make me feel one way or another.  I tried to collect unemployment one time (after paying into it for 12+ years) and was made to feel like a jerk...never again will I rely on anyone other than my family and friends.

PS - It is not as bad as it could be (remember when Alexander Hamilton was shot by Aaron Burr - he was The Vice President of the US!).

Regards - Glenn.


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 13, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> My vote is for *President Bush.*
> He's intelligent, _good speaker or not._
> He's Honest.
> He's got a _wonderful_ work ethic.
> ...



Right on Bro' John! I'm with you on this one.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 13, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> While in College I took a journalism class on "Detecting, avoiding and exposing bias". Then I took another class in the psyche department called "Deception in advertising". After a great deal of scrutiny of the media during the Bush/Gore run I HAD to become a Republican!!!!





			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> You are correct, I was wrong. It wasn't a democrat who first proposed it. I did hear a democrat on TV backing it...thought it was his idea. Sorry. Other than that, my statement was correct.


So, How'd that class on 'Detecting, Avoiding and Exposing Bias' class work out for you?

I appreciate your contribution. I appreciate that you are a conservative. I appreciate that you are a Republican. But, I am curious as to how you can quote of *facts* that 'biased'.

"*President Bush is Intelligent.*" - President Bush was a 'C' student at Yale. His attendance at Yale was further assisted by the fact that he is a Legacy, Affirmative Action for White Guys. Then again, all people have *a* level of intelligence, even the mentally retarded people that Governor Bush had executed, the question is does the Presidents intelligence level equal that of the average American, is it higher, is it lower ... good questions all.

"*President Bush is a man of Faith.*" So is Osama bin Laden. What does being a 'man of faith' have to do with governing a country that practices a separation of church and state? I am currently reading 'The President of Good and Evil', it is an interesting examination of the inconsistent views this man of faith uses when making governing decisions.

"*He's vastly responsible for the great economic turn around that our country is currently enjoying! (an economic resession that began BEFORE he took office and sped up greatly due to the terrorist attack on our soil)*" According to people like Alan Greenspan, the economic recession began in the second quarter of 2001. The Bush Inauguration occured in the first quarter of 2001.  I am not claiming that Bush caused the recession, but he was in office before the recession began.

"*He's got a wonderful work ethic.*" What does this statement mean? He has spent 40 % of his time in office, either on vacation, or in transit to his vacation sites: Crawford, TX, Camp David, Kennebunk, ME. I do suppose it would be "wonderful" to spend 40% of my time on vacation.

"*In 2003, Kerry Voted With Kennedy 93% Of The Time*" What exactly do you mean by this statement? It would seem to indicate that any vote of Senator Kennedy is somehow flawed, or at least a detriment. Is it possible that Kennedy is correct on at least *some *of his votes?

"*Kerrys Health Care Plan Could Cost As Much As $895 Billion Over 10 Years And Still Would Not Cover All Currently Uninsured Individuals.*" This number is falsely spun out of the Republican National Committee. Please see 'Detecting, Avoiding and Exposing Bias".

"*I'm not spouting hyperbole, I'm giving facts that can be looked up by anyone.*" Then by all means, please look up the facts you are stating. Or at least list the references you are citing. I am always willing to learn.

Mike


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 13, 2004)

I really shouldn't get involved in this, but...



> He's Honest.



Uhhh... this is a joke, right?? Anyone remember those "stockpiles of WMDs" he went on about?? The chemical agents Iraq supposedly bought from Africa?? The "mission accomplished" poppycock?? How about the Bush Administration's creation of fake "news reports" showing favor toward their new Medicare plan, and the subsequent strongarming and silencing of all those that opposed it --- not to mention lying about its total bill to Congress??

This administration is anything but honest.



> He's got a wonderful work ethic.



I refer you to Feisty Mouse's comments above. This guy has been on vacation more than any other president in history. I wish I had his schedule.



> He's a man of faith.



Which has absolute nothing to do with one's ability to lead the country. Virtually every leader we've had has been a "man of faith". It means nothing.



> He's vastly responsible for the great economic turn around that our country is currently enjoying! (an economic resession that began BEFORE he took office and sped up greatly due to the terrorist attack on our soil)



You must live in a different America than me, then. From where I'm standing, the economy's still in the crapper.



> He's tough on terrorism.



Yes.... as evidenced by his trough treatment of the Saudi Arabian government, who had more than a hand to do with 9/11 (which the Bush Administration tried to cover up by marking out with a black highlighter all references to the Saudis in the Congressional 9/11 investigation). Oh, wait....



> He did the RIGHT thing in Iraq, and still is.



That's debatable, and certainly isn't a "fact". In any event, right or wrong, what's being done in Iraq is being very poorly _managed_, in no small part due to the Bush Administration (and their dim-witted belief that we would be seen as "liberators" as opposed to "occupiers", despite when all available experts told them otherwise).



> He has restored the dignity and honor of the oval office.



Yes... because lying about pretenses to go to war, alienating America from the international community, destroying our environment, cutting back civil rights under dubious pretenses, extending a hand to the country from which most of the 9/11 terrorists resided from (Saudi Arabia), and providing tax cuts that primarily aided the wealthiest in the country --- are all hallmarks of "honor" and "dignity".

Not by my standards, anyway.



> I don't agree with 100% of what he has done or proposes to do. I really don't. But overall, I feel that President Bush is a fine President.



I don't disagree with 100% of what he had done or proposes to do. I really don't. But overall, I feel that President Bush is the worst President our country has ever seen and probably will ever see.

Laterz.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 13, 2004)

republicans....bad

democrats....bad.
who was the arrogant groups of morons who said we had to have ONLY these 2 parties to choose from?
Nothing in our constituion or bill of rights or ANY law for that matter,says these are the only parties allowed!
I have been eligible to vote for 20yrs and I haven't seen a either one I would vote for....and haven't.
Show me a man who is poor,not a lawyer and WORKS for a blue collar living and gets in the running for president,not to mention NOT being afiliated with either party...and I will vote for him!
 I know there are other parties out there,but what makes them so bad?
We never get a chance to find out.The 2 biggies have cornered the market thru less than honorable means and we just sit back and take it.
Once again....
"He who BUYS the most toys....wins"
what happened to EARNING?
It seems every president we have is always "worse than the last"
Doesn't that seem odd to anyone?


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 13, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> PS - It is not as bad as it could be (remember when Alexander Hamilton was shot by Aaron Burr - he was The Vice President of the US!).


 
Ahh! The Good Ole Days ....

Damn .. I keep forgetting that I am an Anti-Gun, Lesbian-loving, latte-drinking, America-Hating, communist of a Democrat ... I can't be hoping for 10 paces with the Veep.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 13, 2004)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> I have been eligible to vote for 20yrs and I haven't seen a either one I would vote for....and haven't.
> . . . .
> It seems every president we have is always "worse than the last"


Then you have no one to blame, but yourself. Until you have the courage of your convictions, and exercise your *privelege* to vote, you should really tone down your rhetoric.

Somebody much smarter than me once said: "We get the government we deserve."

Mike

P.S. It is the first Tuesday, after the first Monday in November. You just need to show up with your driver's license.


----------



## qizmoduis (Jul 13, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Errr...no WHAT? I said a few things, one generalize 'no' isn't very clear.



"Errr...no" - just to the phrase that I quoted from your earlier message.  I wasn't making a generalized statement at all, but refuting a single specific point of yours, which was quoted in my reply.


----------



## Brother John (Jul 13, 2004)

*Ok Mouse-*
First off, Id like to say to you, and Mike and others who are participating in this I think its very good that you care enough to pay attention to the government and voice your concerns! Even though we dont see eye to eye on certain politicians, political circumstances or party lineswe all care about and love America.  In thisunited we stand. TOO many people in our country are making it Sheik or in vogue to disrespect the Presidentand its idiotic. But if you do your research, even if you arrive at different conclusions than I domy hats off to you!
now
Lets take your issues here Mouse.
*You said:*


> Dubya has taken more vacation time than any President in my memory.


First off. His name isnt _Dubya. _ Not in any sense. At least show some respect for our President, even if you disagree with him. I disagreed with a great deal that President Clinton had to do/sayetc., but hes still President Clinton. When you start dehumanizing someones name (and denying them their proper title president) its all to easy to dislike them without good reason.  Its part of the Bush-Bashing vogue. The highest office in the country deserves more respect than this. 
*Secondly:* This, too, is a misrepresentation that the DNC spouts out its misleading propaganda thats all too easy to swallow. Like all deceptionsits based on a half truth.
*TRUE*: President Bush has spent over 40% of his time out of the Whitehouse and away from the politically charged D.C. Beltway. In fact a great deal of his time has been spent at his ranch in Texas.where his cabinet and administration joins him either in person or electronically and conducts business. IF I had a job that I could do from home (MANthatd be nice) and I did so 50% of the timewould you say that I spend half of my time on vacation? You would if I were President Bush and you were the DNC spin-doctors. They are lumping in his working away from the office time with his vacation time and making it one sum totalvery misleading.

*Next,* you said: more vacation time than any President in my memory.

How many Presidents vacation hours do you remember? _What a strange bit of trivia to commit to memory._ What percentage of time was President Carter away from D.C.? What about President Reagan? President G.H.W. Bush? President Clinton? President Hoover? Just wondering what your points of reference and basis of comparison are. Or are you just regurgitating DNC propaganda whole? Hope not. Id _rather_ think that you are a free-thinking American.

*NEXT: *  You said: He has a terrible work ethic.
Terrible is an emotionally charged word and is totally subjective to you in other words, its your biased opinion. (before anyone thinks that Im demonizing the word bias or biasedIm not. Its the most human thing we can be, and it affects _everyone_. The more we are made aware of it however, the more we can overcome it in the interest of reason and fact. If you arent biased on a subject it indicates that you dont care about that topic. You care, I care*we * are _biased_.)  So fact is YOUR Opinion is that he has a terrible work ethic. 
*Why?*
IF it is based on the aforementioned spin concerning his time away from the Whitehouse _then the conclusion doesnt have a single leg to stand on._

*NEXT: *  You said He's crafty
Nice connotation to that word, _crafty.  _ It implies the use of intelligence and subtlety in deceiving others. Heres the thing though, *EVERY SINGLE President MUST be crafty*or hed NEVER get the job in the first place. If every President were to be 100% plain clear and honest/up-front about their plans and how theyd go about what they intendtheyd not make it. Its not fair, not to us, but to them. Fact is that not every thing that needs to be done will be popular. Getting elected is about being liked, doing the job isnt. Its about taking action, often actions that many will disagree with. I think it was President Truman who said that a leader is one who Takes risks that others wont. I believe it. But the eggs that get cracked along the way to the omelet will upset many a chicken. We require our politicians to act and say things one way to get the office, but if they take their office and its obligations seriously (as I believe every President of the last 100 years has) they must then act along some very different lines. Taking care of business and doing what must be done will seldom win a popularity contest. Every President has relied on speech writers and talking points in order to watch their every word and to couch their actions in words that put the best possible light on themEVERY President. NOBODY else in the world is under that level of intense scrutiny. Nobody. So has President Bush been crafty? YES. As well he should be, must be and will continue to be. 

*NEXT:* You said: I don't think he's at all honest - you can't get a straight answer out of him.  
*So you say.* Still just your opinion. Can you give an example or two?
Okback to crafty huh? I say you get many straight answers out of him, its one of the reasons he upsets people. Hes not nearly as crafty as President Reagan was who took DRASTIC measures to do the right thingyet won peoples hearts and minds in the process.thus The Great Communicator title. Hes not as crafty as President Bill Clinton who could equivocate about the subtle differences about what the word is is. 

*NEXT:* You said: Um, what economic turn around is that?

_Um_

 one:

Economic growth since last summer has been the fastest in nearly 20 years. The American economy grew at a strong annual pace of 3.9 percent during the first quarter of 2004 - above the historical average, and continuing the strong growth seen over the previous two quarters. 
America's standard of living is on the rise. Real after-tax incomes are up by 11% since December 2000 - substantially better than the gains following the last recession. Since the President's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, personal consumption levels have risen significantly. 
Retail sales other than motor vehicles in the first quarter of 2004 increased 11.8 percent, more than double the average annual rate of growth over the last decade. 
Consumer confidence is at its highest level in 2 years. The Conference Board's index of consumer confidence increased over 18 index points in the past 12 months, from 83.5 last June to 101.9 this June. 
New housing construction in May remains at levels near those of December 2003, when they were at their highest in almost 20 years. 
The national homeownership rate, in the first quarter of 2004, remained at the record high of 68.6 percent set in the previous quarter. 
Minority homeownership set a new quarterly record of 50.8 percent in the first quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the fourth quarter and up 1.5 percentage points from the first quarter of 2003. 
Inflation remains low by historical standards, with the core CPI (Consumer Price Index) and the core finished-goods PPI (Producer Price Index) both rising only 1.7 percent over the last 12 months. 
Mortgage rates remain near historic lows, making home buying easier and more affordable. 
Productivity grew from 2000 to 2003 at the fastest 3-year rate in more than 50 years. This has bolstered profits and will lead to significantly higher real wages for workers. 
State tax revenue grew by 8.1 percent over the four quarters ending in March 2004, with nearly all of it attributable to the improving economy rather than to increased taxes - fully 7.1 percent of the revenue gains reflected the economic recovery. This is the best four-quarter growth rate in nearly 4 years. 
Manufacturers have been reporting increased activity and new orders more than at any time in the last 20 years. 
From its low in mid 2002, the stock market is up about 40% and the NASDAQ is up almost 70%. 

The economy has posted steady job gains for each of the last ten months  creating more than 1.5 million jobs since August. According to statistics released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 112,000 new jobs were created in June. 
Nearly 1.3 million jobs have been added since the beginning of the year. 
The national unemployment rate stayed constant at 5.6% in June - down 0.7 percentage point from a peak of 6.3% a year ago. At 5.6%, the unemployment rate is below the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. 
Employment over the last year was up in 44 of the 50 states and the unemployment rate was down in all regions and in 46 of the 50 states. 
National manufacturing employment is up by 64,000 jobs since its low in January. The ISM Manufacturing survey's employment index reached a 30-year high in May and remained strong in June, indicating further gains in manufacturing employment. 
The household survey shows a similar increase in jobs, up 1.7 million since August. 
Unemployment rates have fallen across all levels of education, races, and ages over the past year. 
o For people without a college degree, the unemployment rate is down by 0.7 percentage point. 
o For both African-Americans and Latinos, the unemployment rate is down by 1.5 percentage points. 
o For teenagers, the unemployment rate is down by 2.2 percentage points. 

*THAT recovery*which is still at full steam ahead. Of course you seldom hear this from the general media_wonder why_.
(_not really_)

*NEXT: *  You said He completely bungled Iraq, and still is - we need more troops there, our troops are overextended and being forced to remain longer than they were deployed for, and he's cut their pay and benefits while they have been in Iraq.

_Bungled?_ Nice word there. Implied incompetency. Truth is that the military was cut cut cut in the last administration and when President Bush put forward to increase their fundsDemocrats like Kerry and Edwards did all they could to shoot it down. Theres been problems along the way in the war effort. I dont argue with you on that. But since when was going to war easy? Every war has had problemsbut most of them didnt have 24/7 news coverage with motion cameras in the war zones. This one does. Every problem or proclaimed problem used to cast blame toward our President has occurred with every major war effort weve ever had. After WWII we were viewed as occupier and an Imperialist countrybut when we eventually left we left them in a much better state of affairs than when we arrived. 

*NEXT:  * You said: He has destroyed the dignity and honor of the Oval Office - it has become a dirty CEO's office where industry and wealthy cronies get to have their say, and the government agencies that are suppossed to be protecting Americans have been put under the lead of people who want to please industried instead.
Ahh.*pure* unadulterated DNC propaganda Spin!!! Show me facts.
This is your opinionbased on what?


Hope you are all welltake care.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Jul 13, 2004)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> "Errr...no" - just to the phrase that I quoted from your earlier message.  I wasn't making a generalized statement at all, but refuting a single specific point of yours, which was quoted in my reply.



Okay.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 13, 2004)

Sorry, Brother John, but no. Bit not for most of the reasons cited by the avatars of, "DNC propaganda," as though you weren't also citing the cheery propaganda of the President's cronies.

The stuff about vacation time and all the rest? Who cares. What matters is this:

1. The claim that the Clinton administration lowered military spending isn't true. Please re-check your facts. Further, the claim that the Bush admin increased it is also misleading: much of those increases went to high techniology, some of which (check the bidget for the B-1/B2) the services involved didn't even want. There  were consequences--for example, the present consensus is that we simply don't have enough troops on the ground in Iraq, in part because we didn't spend the money on troops.

2. It's difficult to see which parts of the present Administration's pretty little war WEREN'T screwed up. The intelligence linking Hussein to the attacks on the US, and asserting that he had the far-famed WMDs was by all accounts completely faulty...and more than that, the President both ignored the UN inspectors and overrode his own analysts. He launched the War without  international backing, against the advice of his only experienced military advisor, Colin Powell. He and his advisors insisted again and again and again that we'd be welcomed--and staged various events, such as the toppling of Hussein's statue, to ensure that this illusion was maintained as long as possible. He sent troops in with inadequate training, and inadequate supplies of little things like body armor, when there was no emergency. He promulgated policies, as did his advisors, that abrogated treaties on the treatment of prisoners, and said pretty much openly that torture was OK--and you know as well as anybody else what the consequences were. 

3. Ah yes, the, "it's morning in America," economy. Well, real wages continue to decline; the work-week continues to rise. All those jobs? Well, the stats say that they're mostly crappy jobs--and if you'd looked at the economic news this week, well, "job creation," for the quarter was again about half what was predicted. Meanwhile, oil prices wobble about but trend higher, our balance-of-trade deficit continues to climb, etc. etc., etc.

4. Then we have minor bells and whistles like Ken Lay being indicted--a close personal friend of the Bush family, a major contributor and supporter to his election campaign. And if that ain't enough, this--President (elected, remember, by a popular minority and after a reasonably-flaky Court decision)--has actually been floating trial balloons about postponing elections. 

I still think John Kerry's a twit. But preferable? Absolutely. It's a cheap shot--but unlike our President, just for openers, he did not sit on his ***, safe in Texas, during a war, then turn around and saber-rattle like a fool.


----------



## MisterMike (Jul 13, 2004)

I dunno, but Kerry has flip-flopped on everything from SUV's to Affirmative Action. Like Gore, he will say or do anything to get elected. I'd prefer someone a little more centered, if at all.

www.flipflopper.com - Luvvvvvv the logo..LOL Someone should get one for this guy's lapel pin.

For my taste (and hopefully anyone else who pays taxes), he's voted left of liberal on nearly every issue (that he has decided to show up to vote for). For all of you worried about President Bush working from the ranch once in a while, I'd be a bit more concerned on how much this guy is gonna show up for work (in the unlikely event he is elected). His track record for showing up in the Senate aint too good.

"Mr. Kerry was absent 60 percent of the time in the Senate, totaling 246 votes"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031024-105806-7693r.htm

Tell me again what we're paying him for???

I think I'm having a premonition of what he will flip flop on next in the unfortunate event he were elected: The economy.

He'd say it IS in recovery, deep enough to repeal the tax cuts (on his version of the rich of course - any household making over $46k). Yea, that's just what we need. Not.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 13, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - [size=-1]A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda. [/size]
> 
> THERE YOU HAVE IT!!! George Bush does not want to give up his throne lol. All Hail King Bush lol



This really is not funny.  I read the justification, but the cast of the bones (facts) in this case are inductively frightening.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 13, 2004)

Concerning vacation time for the president. I guess 'junior' has a ways to go before he catches up to dear ole Dad.

Although I haven't searched for it yet ... I think you will also find that President Bush's daily schedule is much more limited compared to others who held the office. I understand he starts his day later and ends earlier than most other office holders. Although, Reagan was also known for his short work day. 




> According to an August 2003 article in the _Washington Post_, President Bush has spent all or part of 166 days during his presidency at his Crawford, Texas, ranch or en route. Add the time spent at or en route to the presidential retreat of Camp David and at the Bush family estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has taken *250 days* off as of August 2003. That's 27% of his presidency spent on vacation. Although to be fair, much of this time is classified as a "working vacation."
> 
> Bush isn't the first president to get away from his work. George Bush Sr. took all or part of 543 vacation days at Camp David and in Kennebunkport. Ronald Reagan spent 335 days at or en route to his Santa Barbara, California, ranch during his eight years in office. Of recent presidents, Jimmy Carter took the least days off -- only 79 days, which he usually spent at his home in Georgia. That's less than three weeks a year, which is closer to the average American's paid time off of 13 days per year. What about Clinton? As of December 1999, President Bill Clinton had spent only *152 days* on holiday during his two terms, according to CBS News. A former staffer noted Clinton was such a workaholic that "it almost killed Clinton to take one-week vacations during August." In 2000, Clinton cut his summer vacation short to just three days, so he and his wife could concentrate on her Senate race and fundraising for Democrats. While we couldn't find the exact tally for Clinton's last year in office, it's reasonable to expect he didn't increase his vacation rate. And in barely three years in office, George W. Bush has already taken more vacation than Clinton did in seven years.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 13, 2004)

I hate to do this ... but, "there you go, again."



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> Then there's Kerry. _SCARRY KERRY!!!_





			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> First off. His name isnt _*Scarry Kerry**.* _Not in any sense. At least show some respect for our *Senators*, even if you disagree with him. I disagreed with a great deal that President Clinton had to do/sayetc., but hes still President Clinton. When you start dehumanizing someones name (and denying them their proper title *senator*) its all to easy to dislike them without good reason. Its part of the Bush-Bashing vogue.


So, tell me again, how did that class work out for you? You know, '*Detecting, Avoiding and Exposing Bias*'.

Thanks for playing. Mike


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Then you have no one to blame, but yourself. Until you have the courage of your convictions, and exercise your *privelege* to vote, you should really tone down your rhetoric.
> 
> Somebody much smarter than me once said: "We get the government we deserve."
> 
> ...


Maybe you didn't understand....The whole "you have no right to complain" is a lame excuse.
I said there was never anyone worth voting for.How is someone supposed to express thier "opinion" when there has NEVER been a single person worthy?
If I am going to vote for someone...he needs to stand for what I believe in.I refuse to choose "the lesser of 2 evils"....who said ANY evil was neccessary?
And as I said before....when someone OTHER than a republican or democrat gets in the running......then and ONLY then will I consider voting.
Because I don't vote...doesn't mean I won't vote.

Damien

P.S....
 I have always known when it is.


----------



## Brother John (Jul 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I hate to do this ... but, "there you go, again."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not a bad come-back there Mike. But why do you keep using the name of a class I took in College against me? I didn't say I mastered the material, but it did open my eyes.
It worked out for me just fine really. Thanks for asking.

Respecting a senator doesn't even compare to respecting the Executive Office.
I feel this is apples and oranges.
Besides, I didn't make up a childish name for him... just imply that he scares/worries me.
He does.

Your Brother
John
PS: I chose NOT to 'avoid' bias...why should I? I'm opinionated.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 13, 2004)

Bammx2 said:
			
		

> Maybe you didn't understand....The whole "you have no right to complain" is a lame excuse.
> I said there was never anyone worth voting for.How is someone supposed to express thier "opinion" when there has NEVER been a single person worthy?
> If I am going to vote for someone...he needs to stand for what I believe in.I refuse to choose "the lesser of 2 evils"....who said ANY evil was neccessary?
> And as I said before....when someone OTHER than a republican or democrat gets in the running......then and ONLY then will I consider voting.
> ...


I disagree with just about every sentiment you express here. But, I think it is less about not being able to find someone who believes as you believe, and more about something else ... I can't imagine what. 

In case you haven't heard, there is always someone other than a Republican or Democrat running for office. Of course, if you haven't seen an election ballot, then you might not be aware of how many people actually run for President. I am sure, however, that you have heard of 'Ralph Nader'.

But let us assume for a moment, that *all* the Presidential candidate's hold positions alien to your own.  Why does the prevent you from voting your State representatives, your municiple representatives, or any ballot initiatives in your state? 

Further, *why not put your own name on the ballot*, and help eliminate some of that 'evil' (I don't believe in evil, at least in your description).

Here's a primer.

Mike



http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/election1/


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 13, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Not a bad come-back there Mike. But why do you keep using the name of a class I took in College against me? I didn't say I mastered the material, but it did open my eyes.
> It worked out for me just fine really. Thanks for asking.


Well, it seems that you are presenting a great deal of 'Bias' as 'Fact'. Of course, having studied how to 'Detect', 'Avoid' and 'Expose' biases certainly would put you in the position to know what you are presenting.



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> Respecting a senator doesn't even compare to respecting the Executive Office.
> I feel this is apples and oranges.
> Besides, I didn't make up a childish name for him... just imply that he scares/worries me.
> He does.


I am not sure why the office of President is apples and the office of United States Senator is oranges, perhaps you could explain?

Well, let's see again ... Feisty Mouse was scolded for referring to the President by *his* nickname, but then you refer to a Senator in a derogatory nickname. I never heard anyone posit that 'W' was considered disrespectful to the President, especially when this President is known for giving out nicknames (Kenneth 'Kenny Boy' Lay, Paul 'Pablo' O'Neill).

For more nicknames - This link is a joke : http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2002/071702.asp



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> PS: I chose NOT to 'avoid' bias...why should I? I'm opinionated.


Cheers! Me too. Mike


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I disagree with just about every sentiment you express here. But, I think it is less about not being able to find someone who believes as you believe, and more about something else ... I can't imagine what.
> 
> In case you haven't heard, there is always someone other than a Republican or Democrat running for office. Of course, if you haven't seen an election ballot, then you might not be aware of how many people actually run for President. I am sure, however, that you have heard of 'Ralph Nader'.
> 
> ...


You have every right to disagree with me.Just as I have every right to disagree with you.Yes,I have heard of "Ralph Nader".....so? I don't agree with him either.
Once again...back to the original issue. I don't "vote" for what I believe in whole heartedly.I don't care what anybody says or what "party" they hide behind....we have had enough of "professional" politicians.
 If WE are the government....then why don't we have a retired brick layer running? Or a forklift driver without a degree in anything? And I don't mean just "on the ballots"....I mean RUNNING!

Thanks for the website though!


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 13, 2004)

I checked out the website.....

As I have said....a "working class person" has NO chance and it is written right there in black&white.
WE, the government, are the working class.................am I the only one who sees anything wrong with that?
please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 13, 2004)

Hey all

Excuse the brief and perhaps typo-laden post, as I am laid up with a fever. Oh, the nobilities of getting up and lecturing to students early in the am - now my fever has gotten the best of me.

Brother John, I was simply responding in kind to your comments - why were your opinions right, and needed no backup, and mine were wrong, and did?

Anyways, I think we should move this discussion, which I am enjoying quite a bit, to another thread - we are ganking the original intent, which was simply to put feelers out for who people wanted to vote for, not start a big debate.

Me, I likes them debates, but we should take this to a different thread.

Having said that, I wish you all a pleasant night - I am going to take my lecture material to bed and try to get over this fever before it completely clobbers me.

ETA: whoever gave me negative rep points and called me a "deluded twit" can discuss this here, if you'd like.  I'd rather know who was under the impression that I am deluded, lol!


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 13, 2004)

Hey Fiesty Mouse ... we must be exposing some uncomfortable truths to someone ... I got a nasty gram post too ... something to the effect of "That's a lot of insults for one post" on a post where there were no insults (irony, yes - insults, no). I know insults, and I am (unfortuneatly) a terribly obvious person ... if I were insulting someone (and I try not to do that too much here ... I've been spanked once or twice), everybody knows it.

And, although the thread has gotten a bit off topic ... The Study is one of the places where such thread-drift is more acceptable ... and, every conversation drifts around a bit as it progresses, doesn't it?

Get some rest, that always seems to help me ... even when I ain't sick. Mike


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Jul 14, 2004)

Once agian this was not suppose to end up in debate. All I want is a name...

By the way raising taxes is not always a bad thing. Every always thinks it is but as long as the raise is not drastic...it can have a lot of benefits on the economy if spent right. Thats all I'm going to Say.

ONCE AGAIN NAMES ONLY PLEASE

Kerry for me


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 14, 2004)

gee...I got me a negative rep point...I like the red dot
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Now...was it because I went off topic or because I was honest with a personal opinion?
I am just curious so I don't make the same mistake twice.I'm not here to battle with anyone.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 14, 2004)

> ETA: whoever gave me negative rep points and called me a "deluded twit" can discuss this here, if you'd like. I'd rather know who was under the impression that I am deluded, lol!



T'was me, Fiesty Mouse!! I recieve joy by causing pain to you and your deluded self.  :supcool: 

Meh. Or not.  :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 14, 2004)

Please report abuses of the rep system to the admin team.  We will investigate and if we determine that the comments are a problem, we will take appropriate action.

I will be making some changes shortly to the system which may reduce some of the problems we've seen.


----------



## Brother John (Jul 14, 2004)

Hey Mouse-

Yah know what, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that your 'reasons' needed justification and mine did not. Honestly, that's just not right, I apologize. I could site my sources, but that'd be so very tedious and boring. Overall they come from the GOP web-site ( www.GOP.Com ). As my brother Robert said, it's just the propaganda from the right whereas you, Mike and others are telling the propaganda from the left. By definition...we are all spouting propaganda I guess. Just depends on who's propaganda you find more convincing. Stats aren't "truth", just numbers that lean heavily in the direction of the idiology of the one that pulled and judged them. I could find lots to support my position in support of President Bush, I'm sure you and Mike could find plenty to do the opposite.

Truth be told my reasons for advocating the reelection of President Bush is simpler than all the mess I've thrown out so far:
1. I like his view on taxes and feel he is doing well for our economy.
2. I like his opposition to partial birth abortion, and hate Kerry's stance on same.
3. I feel that President Bush handled 9/11 very well and will do the best to protect us in the future.
4. I'm conservative/Republican, so is he....and I like his personality.
5. I feel that the greatest/most frequently given reason almost anyone gives for electing Sen. Kerry is that "He isn't Bush"...which I feel is a *LOUSY* reason to elect anyone.

MIKE: Maybe I should put more thought into the respect I show toward a Senator, even if I am diametrically opposed to almost everything he does and says.

EVERYONE: I've been too harsh about all this. I have several office-mates who are on either side of the fence on this issue and we all tend to stir up some rather heated debate over this. I brought my "heat" with me here. But I don't come to Martial Talk for a political debate...I come here for fun, for an E-hobby. So this will be my last contribution to this thread, unless a question is directed at me specifically. (Try to PM me, I check those and respond)

Thanks everyone...
Don't forget to vote and encourage everyone else to as well...Democrat, Republican or otherwise.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Bammx2 (Jul 14, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Please report abuses of the rep system to the admin team. We will investigate and if we determine that the comments are a problem, we will take appropriate action.
> 
> I will be making some changes shortly to the system which may reduce some of the problems we've seen.


How do I get in touch with the admin team to report things?


----------



## Nightingale (Jul 14, 2004)

you can either hit the "report to mod" button at the top of the post, or drop one of us a PM.  If it was something that happened in a specific forum (like this one), tell your forum mod (for this forum, me, or see the announcements forum for a complete list) via PM or email (username@martialtalk.com).  If its a general issue (this person is stalking me across the entire board or something), PM a supermod or admin.  Mods only have direct power in their assigned fora, supermods and admins have power across the board.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 14, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Please report abuses of the rep system to the admin team. We will investigate and if we determine that the comments are a problem, we will take appropriate action.
> 
> I will be making some changes shortly to the system which may reduce some of the problems we've seen.


Bob ... I do not feel that someone marking a 'disapprove' on my post is necessarily a bad thing. As I mentioned, I am a pretty opinionated guy, and if someone disagrees with my opinion, I can understand the response of giving out a little red tick-mark. I, quite probably, have done it more than once, myself.

Oh .. and for a name

Lyndon LaRouche


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 14, 2004)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> Once agian this was not suppose to end up in debate. All I want is a name...
> 
> By the way raising taxes is not always a bad thing. Every always thinks it is but as long as the raise is not drastic...it can have a lot of benefits on the economy if spent right. Thats all I'm going to Say.
> 
> ...


I don't think that this thread can possibly go back to the original topic without debate, unless everyone quits posting, and everyone waits until someone new comes along. By then, the thread will have died, and no longer be obvious (near the top), thereby decreasing the likelyhood a new poster will jump in. I figure everyone that is prepared to make their view known has likely done so by now. Besides which, how can there be a "study" topic with no debate? It's like a turkey sandwich with no mayo, or a horse with no legs.

I'm Canadian, so I'll not be voting in the US election. That's my opinion.  Regardless, the debate makes a good read, and whatever goes on down there will effect us up here.


----------



## Nightingale (Jul 14, 2004)

giving out a negative rep point for a post you dislike or disagree with is not abuse, however, I would encourage people to save negative rep points for people who are being rude, rather than those who are being civil in disagreeing with you.

commenting with that rep point "you're a freakin' moron!" or something similar is abuse. The reputation point system is not a place where members can anonymously attack other members.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 14, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> I don't think that this thread can possibly go back to the original topic without debate, unless everyone quits posting, and everyone waits until someone new comes along. By then, the thread will have died, and no longer be obvious (near the top), thereby decreasing the likelyhood a new poster will jump in. I figure everyone that is prepared to make their view known has likely done so by now. Besides which, how can there be a "study" topic with no debate? It's like a turkey sandwich with no mayo, or a horse with no legs.
> 
> I'm Canadian, so I'll not be voting in the US election. That's my opinion. Regardless, the debate makes a good read, and whatever goes on down there will effect us up here.


I agree with you quite a bit here .... and don't let that 'being a Canadian' thing stop you from voting here in the states ... little things like laws aren't meant to be obeyed when it comes to something as serious as an election. [ THAT IS A JOKE ]

I did hear that there are some are some citizens who have residency in two states ... (for instance, Florida & Pennsylvania) ... where they voted in both states.

And ... for a Name ... Gene Amondson - Prohibition Candidate

P.S. For those undecided, a complete list of Presidential Candidates can be found here : http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party.php?party_name=All&sort=candidate_lastname


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 15, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I dunno, but Kerry has flip-flopped on everything from SUV's to Affirmative Action. Like Gore, he will say or do anything to get elected. I'd prefer someone a little more centered, if at all.


I don't think there is any successful elected official that you can't find having said one thing and done another ...  

See http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263



> President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief
> 
> *July 7, 2004*
> 
> ...


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 15, 2004)

Wow.


----------



## TwistofFat (Jul 15, 2004)

FM - I agree.  That was the longest post I have ever seen...


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 15, 2004)

lol - I meant, Wow, that was an interesting post. But you made me smile.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 15, 2004)

> T'was me, Fiesty Mouse!! I recieve joy by causing pain to you and your deluded self. :supcool:
> 
> Meh. Or not. :asian:


 I missed this one before, heretic - lol!!!!


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Jul 15, 2004)

Okay debate away...I only wanted names but I see that is not going to happen...but please keep it cool and don't attack anyone. People can still get along and share totally different political views. That is one reason America has lived so long as a country. So please keep personal attacks on character out of this.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Jul 15, 2004)

Flatlander,

Whats your opinion on the US canidates. From recent items I have read Canada has been fed up with some US items and hasn't really supported the US to much in the War in Iraq, (which I'm not yelling because I myself don't think we should be over there, but I do like to know that our allies stand behind us)

Oh and what is a great place to visit tourism wise in Canada...I want to go up someday. Not to far away already....Pennsylvania.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 16, 2004)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> Flatlander,
> 
> Whats your opinion on the US canidates. From recent items I have read Canada has been fed up with some US items and hasn't really supported the US to much in the War in Iraq, (which I'm not yelling because I myself don't think we should be over there, but I do like to know that our allies stand behind us)
> 
> Oh and what is a great place to visit tourism wise in Canada...I want to go up someday. Not to far away already....Pennsylvania.


First of all, please bear in mind that Canada-US relationships are strictly governmental, and in no way reflect the 'will' of the people.  

Regarding the election, I'm not informed enough to 'know' whether Kerry is a better choice than Bush, or vice versa.  That's why I was interested to continue to read debate on the topic here.  Nonetheless, from a Canadian perspective, it seems to me that it is very rare that Canada - US relations aren't good.  They were fantastic in the Mulroney - Reagan years.  Cretien wasn't very friendly with the Bush Administration, but him and Clinton got along pretty good.

I would like to be able to see things go well for you guys.  I'm alittle concerned about the US economy, I read all kinds of scary stuff regarding possible fallout from that.  

Some Canadians support the war on terror, some do not.  I would have preferred that the whole deal been done through the UN, but it wasn't to be.  I think the ends justified the means in this one, but realistically, we haven't seen the ends yet, so we'll have to hurry up and wait for that one.  

Either way, I'm interested to see what goes down.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 16, 2004)

Hey Flatlander .. I really love Canada and Canadians. And I find the juxtaposition of our two contries interesting.

What percentage of Canadian citizens do you think can name the leader of the United States?

What percentage of United States citizens do you think can name the leader of Canada?


Honesty ... I can't recall the new Prime Minister's name right now .... although I do try and pay a bit attention to what is happening North of the Border.

Cheers - Mike

Oh, yeah .. for a name  ... Sterling David Allan .... He gets my vote !


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 16, 2004)

Ha!  Good question.  In terms of actual numbers, I couldn't tell you, but I'm sure that as a percentage, a greater percentage of Canadians could tell you the name of the President than Americans the Prime Minister.  In fact, It may even be likely that a greater percentage of Canadians know the President's name than the Prime Minister's! (Paul Martin, by the way).


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 16, 2004)

I thought the Prime Minister of Canada's name was "Jean Poutin".



Regards,



Steve


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 16, 2004)

Either that was a poor attempt at a joke, or you are misinformed.  _Jean Cretien_ has retired from politics and is now an advisor to Petrokazakstan.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 16, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I agree with you quite a bit here .... and don't let that 'being a Canadian' thing stop you from voting here in the states ... little things like laws aren't meant to be obeyed when it comes to something as serious as an election. [ THAT IS A JOKE ]



Well we did have a (short lived) Prime Minister say that election campaigns were not the place to discuss serious issues


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 16, 2004)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> Flatlander,
> 
> Whats your opinion on the US canidates. From recent items I have read Canada has been fed up with some US items and hasn't really supported the US to much in the War in Iraq, (which I'm not yelling because I myself don't think we should be over there, but I do like to know that our allies stand behind us)
> 
> Oh and what is a great place to visit tourism wise in Canada...I want to go up someday. Not to far away already....Pennsylvania.



There is a vast difference between being allies and blindly going to war. Canada was (and still is) right there in Afghanistan. It comes down to a sovereign nation deciding on it's own whether to commit their troops to a conflict. If the proof of WMD, terrorism and imminent therat to the security of the US would have been there, Canada would have sent troops to Iraq. We did send an additional 1,000 troops to Afghanistan to make 1,000 US troops available to get shipped to Iraq.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 16, 2004)

Better yet, what is the percentage of the US population that knows that the title for the leader in Canada is Prime Minister?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 16, 2004)

I have heard people refer to the "President of Canada" depressingly often.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 16, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Either that was a poor attempt at a joke, or you are misinformed.  _Jean Cretien_ has retired from politics and is now an advisor to Petrokazakstan.




Flatlander,

It was indeed a joke, but not an original one.

During the 2000 election, a comedian approached then candidate George W. Bush and asked him what he thought of Canada's Prime Minister _Jean Poutine's_ recent endorsement.  

"I appreciate his strong statement. He understands I believe in free trade," Bush replied. "He understands I want to make sure our relations with our most important neighbour to the north of us, the Canadians, is strong and we'll work closely together."

This was met with some hilarity north of the border, as poutin (or is it 'poutine'?) is an artery-clogging breakfast dish made with fries, curds, and gravy...as you no doubt know.  The Prime Minister of Canada at the time was Jean Chretien.

This came at a time when Bush has made several foreign policy gaffes by not knowing various foreign heads of state.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/506298.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e599.htm

It also makes one wonder who our OTHER neighbors to the north of us are...given that Bush thinks that the Canadians are the most important of them.  In any case, in Bush's eyes, "our relations is strong."


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 16, 2004)

Steve, Thanks for reposting that ... while I remember the good chuckle I had when this event occurred (my company was having a meeting in Whistler, BC, at the time, I think). I had forgot the 'most important neighbor to the North' part.


Mike


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 16, 2004)

Right!  I remember that!  It was Rick Mercer - the show was This Hour Has 22 Minutes.  Sorry about the defensive tone, I didn't catch the reference at all.  Steve, that was a while ago.  You've got a pretty impressive memory.

The 'other neighbor to the North' reference?  Quebec!  They already don't think of themselves in a provincial context, so maybe the President was simply mistaken, assuming that they had already gained their independence!
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Anyhoo, Back to the topic at hand - The Next US President.

From the feeling that I'm getting on this particular forum, Bush is OUT.  Do you think this is representative of the American voting population?  Any polls down there yet?  If so, what are they saying?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 16, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Sorry about the defensive tone, I didn't catch the reference at all.  Steve, that was a while ago.  You've got a pretty impressive memory.
> 
> The 'other neighbor to the North' reference?  Quebec!  They already don't think of themselves in a provincial context, so maybe the President was simply mistaken, assuming that they had already gained their independence!




Nah...I didn't take it as defensive.  I threw that out there hoping to see if anyone would remember it.  And my memory is awful...at best it is oddly selective.  But thanks for the compliment.

I don't think the President knows where Quebec is, Flatlander.  If he were to learn they speak French, he'd likely think Canada's PM is now Jacques Chirac, instead of Jean Poutine. 

Dubya confuses easily.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 16, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> From the feeling that I'm getting on this particular forum, Bush is OUT. Do you think this is representative of the American voting population?


 I definitely don't feel like we provide a statistically significant sample.  Besides, I think those of us who are pro-Bush tend not to engage in these discussions 

 I just spent dinner seated near a table of pro-Bush young adults.  It was interesting listening to their conversation... they spent the first part of the evening trying to piece together the Pledge of Allegiance (badly), engaging in some delightful historical revisionism (like "we've never fought China in a war" and "John Hinkle Booth killed JFK"... no, I'm not kidding, that's what she said), then talking about how ignorant people who saw Fahrenheit 9/11 are...

 But I digress.



			
				Flatlander said:
			
		

> Any polls down there yet?  If so, what are they saying?


 The latest Gallup poll puts Kerry ahead of GW by 4%:

http://www.gallup.com/election2004/

 This is within the margin of error.

 The only major poll that I saw today that put Bush ahead, at the moment, was Fox News (unsurprisingly).


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 16, 2004)

Ah, dang.  You know, political discussion is more interesting when both sides are pretty knowledgeable.  Hope you enjoyed your dinner anyhow, PeachMonkey.

As is evident in my past posts, I am a Kerry supporter.  But although some of these polls sound promising, I am very concerned.  The American public seems to respond to smear campaigns, and that's what Bush is mounting.  Kerry's messages seem to ll be pretty positive.  It's not that I want him starting a smear campaign - I'm glad he's not - but I worry about Bush's tactics.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 16, 2004)

Thanks, Mouse.  My dinner was fine anyway, since my company was so delightful (as I'm sure you can imagine).  The conversation I refer to was at the next table over.

 I hope you get feeling better.  I'm starting to feel like I'm coming down with something.

 As for Kerry, I think of myself less as a "Kerry supporter" (since he represents so much of the kind of centrist 'New Democrat' that I loathe) than a "Conservative opposer".


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 17, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I just spent dinner seated near a table of pro-Bush young adults.  It was interesting listening to their conversation... they spent the first part of the evening trying to piece together the Pledge of Allegiance (badly), engaging in some delightful historical revisionism (like "we've never fought China in a war" and "John Hinkle Booth killed JFK"... no, I'm not kidding, that's what she said), then talking about how ignorant people who saw Fahrenheit 9/11 are...




Frustrating, isn't it?  I bet they were undergraduates, too.  Even bright youngsters can be ignorant as all get out.

I quizzed a young lady (21 years old) about the looming war in Iraq (just prior to the invasion).  She was outspoken in her opposition to it.  I asked her if she knew who the president of Iraq was...she couldn't name him.  

She also couldn't name the ethnic groups in Iraq, any bordering nations, or name the two major rivers flowing through it.  She got one of fifty questions right by saying that the major religion was "Muslim" (sic), but couldn't name the two conflicting sects of the religion.  She also couldn't name the Sec of State of the U.S. or the Sec Def.

I wager a youngster favoring the war would have failed as miserably.  So much for the notion of an informed electorate, eh?

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Mark Weiser (Jul 17, 2004)

Where is our Ross Perot Type in this campagin to liven things up LOL! Please Nader


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 17, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> Where is our Ross Perot Type in this campagin to liven things up LOL! Please Nader


Ross Perot Type ?

You mean someone who can analogize a 7 trillion dollar national economy to 'getting under the hood and fixin' it'?

Someone who thinks that 'flip-charts' are a way to govern / lead?

Someone just a little bit nutty about his privacy?

Someone just a little bit paranoid about meeting with those opposed to him?

Ain't he already in the White House?

:wink:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 17, 2004)

:roflmao:


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 17, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Frustrating, isn't it? I bet they were undergraduates, too. Even bright youngsters can be ignorant as all get out.


 They actually seemed older than that, honestly.  They actually reminded me of just-out-of-the-womb MBAs.

 But you're absolutely right, ignorance is hardly limited to the Right.  I attended a small liberal-arts college, and was primarily surrounded by fellow leftists... however, most of them assumed that I was some kind of baby-eating tree-destroying monster because of my focus on military history.  I was called "Warmonger" more times than I can remember.

 These were the days of the first Clinton election, and political discussions usually boiled down to "I hate George Bush!"  Sigh.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 17, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> They actually seemed older than that, honestly.  They actually reminded me of just-out-of-the-womb MBAs.
> 
> But you're absolutely right, ignorance is hardly limited to the Right.  I attended a small liberal-arts college, and was primarily surrounded by fellow leftists... however, most of them assumed that I was some kind of baby-eating tree-destroying monster because of my focus on military history.  I was called "Warmonger" more times than I can remember.
> 
> These were the days of the first Clinton election, and political discussions usually boiled down to "I hate George Bush!"  Sigh.




Back in the early Reagan years I recall a young woman who was quite well educated and very far to the left.  Her response to anything positive about the administration was to literally raise her fist in the air and yell "Lies!  LIES!"  She then would fail to give cogent arguments from the leftist perspective.  Unlike your MBA's she wasn't ignorant...just to impassioned to effectively debate.

I like to think that as youngsters get older they get more involved with current events.  I may be deluding myself.


Regards,

Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 17, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Petrokazakstan.



I'm dying.  That was so funny.  As far as ironic wordplay goes, that takes the cake.  I bow to the master.  :asian:


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 17, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm dying. That was so funny. As far as ironic wordplay goes, that takes the cake. I bow to the master. :asian:


From:  http://www.petrokazakhstan.com/



> CALGARY, Alberta - Mr. Bernard F. Isautier, Chairman of the Board of Directors of PetroKazakhstan Inc. ("PetroKazakhstan") is pleased to announce that Mr. Jean Chrétien, former Prime Minister of Canada has accepted to become a Special Adviser to the company for International Relations.
> 
> Jean Chrétien was born in Shawinigan, Quebec on January 11, 1934. Mr. Chrétien received a Bachelors of Arts from St. Joseph Seminary in Trois-Rivières in 1955, and a law degree from Laval University in 1958. Subsequently, he joined the law firm of Chrétien, Landry, Deschenes, Trudel and Normand, in Shawinigan. He also served as Director of the Bar of Trois-Rivières in 1962-63.
> 
> ...


No wordplay here.  Just the facts.

kindly,

Dan


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 17, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> From:  http://www.petrokazakhstan.com/
> 
> 
> No wordplay here.  Just the facts.
> ...



Holy Crap.  As if we don't have enough petroleum conspiracy theory flying around...


----------



## Brother John (Jul 19, 2004)

Found this and thought it was funny/curious.
enjoy
http://msn.ancestry.com/landing/strange/bush4/index.htm?o_xid=10420&o_lid=10420&sourcecode=10420
Your Brother
John


----------



## Makalakumu (Jul 19, 2004)

We discussed that relation on a thread about Secret Societies.  On top of being kinsman, they both belong to a death obsessed brotherhood at Yale called Skull and Bones.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 19, 2004)

IS the Skull and Bones a death-obsessed secret society?  I just imagined it was another secret society that protected its members as a #1 priority.  Whence the death obsession?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 19, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> IS the Skull and Bones a death-obsessed secret society? I just imagined it was another secret society that protected its members as a #1 priority. Whence the death obsession?


 Mouse,

 I refer you to the following resources:

http://www.parascope.com/articles/0997/skullbones.htm
http://www.thememoryhole.org/skull-bones-vid.htm
http://www.freedomdomain.com/secretsocieties/skull02.html
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=2511
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=2947

 While their practices and origins are disturbing, in the end, I think it's just another fraternity... good for airing psychosexual abnormalities among other WASPs, and building networks of power and influence for the future:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/60minutes/main576332.shtml


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jul 19, 2004)

Still chasin' after the 9-11 conspiracy theories, Upnorth?



Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 19, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> We discussed that relation on a thread about Secret Societies. On top of being kinsman, they both belong to a death obsessed brotherhood at Yale called Skull and Bones.


I believe President Nickname actually has a skull and bones nickname of 'Temporary' (or something similar) because he couldn't think of a nickname for himself during pledge week (or what ever it is called when they initiate you). I found that to be quite Ironic.

Mike


----------



## TwistofFat (Jul 22, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Frustrating, isn't it? I bet they were undergraduates, too. Even bright youngsters can be ignorant as all get out.
> 
> I quizzed a young lady (21 years old) about the looming war in Iraq (just prior to the invasion). She was outspoken in her opposition to it. I asked her if she knew who the president of Iraq was...she couldn't name him.
> 
> ...


Folks - as you may have guessed, I am not a Kerry/Edwards supporter - However, neither am I a Liberal Opposer or Conservative Supporter. I do not have time to do justice to my political discussion (as per the definition - open to debate) since I am at work, but I had to add my two cents.

Just as Jay Leno is able to find those numbskulls during his "man" on the street interviews (identified Kerry as Lurch from the Adams Family), there are many under informed/ over opinionated schleps on every side of every issue (sports/politics et al). My point however is more to the tome of Bush is evil and will cause the downfall of society (we survived Pierce, Filmore and Carter!) and the general hatred for the man. I remember vividly the end of Mr. Clinton's first term ("he kilt Vince Foster with hemlock and dumped him in FT. Marcy Park hisself, herd it from my kusin...") that if 'we' did rid ourselves of this beast the world would end (if republicans were as talented as Moore and Bon Jovi there would have movies and songs but alas, we just add well).

In retrospection, we are still here and we will endure whoever sullies/exemplifies the Office of the President as we will with Misters Kerry or Bush. Not all conservatives/liberals are dumb and evil as evidenced by some of the excellent points (FM, PM and the JarHead), but if we have differing opinions (I study Mr. Parker's Kenpo for example) it doesn't mean the others are obtuse, but simply different approaches to the issues - I have kids and support education for instance.

BTW - The two rivers in Baghdad are the Uphaseities and Tigers..lol.

Regards - Glenn.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 22, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> BTW - The two rivers in Baghdad are the Uphaseities and Tigers..lol.


Now that's a chuckle ...


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 22, 2004)

Dennis Kucinich officially endorsed Kerry today.

All my hopes are dashed.

Mike


----------



## Trident (Jul 23, 2004)

I hear you Mike - I was rooting for the Kucinich / Sharpton ticket, personally.  It would make for an entertaining few months to say the least.

I grew up in Cleveland, and remember when Kucinich was the mayor.  Interesting character, he was.

Mike


----------



## hkg (Jul 31, 2004)

Can i jst say being a Scotish guy i think i hav it bad with Tony Blair but i really feel for u americans with people like bush over there. He is a real laughin stock over here! (no offence to his supporters........ahem, hehe only jokin!)


----------



## TigerWoman (Jul 31, 2004)

I like Other too.  Definitely NOT Jesse Ventura.  He gave everyone a refund not worth much but now we need the money back in the budget, made our schools so much worse, and most of the time he was promoting himself trying to capitalize on being a governor.  TW of M'sota


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 1, 2004)

hkg said:
			
		

> Can i jst say being a Scotish guy i think i hav it bad with Tony Blair but i really feel for u americans with people like bush over there. He is a real laughin stock over here! (no offence to his supporters........ahem, hehe only jokin!)


 

I see where you're coming from...but for those of us here who don't care for him, we find it very hard to laugh.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## hkg (Aug 2, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I see where you're coming from...but for those of us here who don't care for him, we find it very hard to laugh.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ...


Point taken i would definetly feel the same if i lived over there So is there any decent politcians in america there is definetly a lack here. It seems once they get past a certain level they jst get corrupted by sooooo much red tape the world is in for a serious wake up call at some point.


----------



## heretic888 (Aug 2, 2004)

> So is there any decent politcians in america there is definetly a lack here.



Yes, there are. The problem is these guys rarely get a shot at being president (i.e., are almost never picked as either major party's nominee).

On the Republican side, both John McCaine and Colin Powell are excellent examples in my opinion. Powell is probably the only reason Bush hasn't blowed us all up yet, and is a strong voice of reason within that administration's cacaphony of idiocy. McCaine is a man of great wisdom, experience, and moral conviction; his attempt to encourage campaign finance reform, and limit the degree of control that corporations and special interest groups have on our democracy should be commended. Not something I could say of Bush at all.

There are a few good Democrats, too. I quite like Howard Dean, who is usually unfairly portrayed by an agenda-driven media (an extremist he is not). Senator Joseph Biden also has my respect, as an intelligent, moderate Democrat.

Kerry, in my opinion, is kind of bleh. But I'll take him over Dubya any day of the week.

Laterz.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 2, 2004)

As I've said before, I actively like Kerry.  But any of the Dems would have been my pick over Dubya this year - he is just terrible.  

I think the Bush Administration shot Powell's possible run for President in future years by hanging him out to dry (cutting him off) during the early days of Iraq.  Powell at one or two points made statements that the Administration essentially contradicted.  I think he's a very loyal and upstanding man who, unfortunately, is loyal to the wrong folks.

Although I don't agree with everything McCain says, I have a lot of respect for him, too.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 15, 2004)

This article, I think, will be helpful for any people undecided out there.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5709120/



> Tuberculosis had sneaked up again, reappearing with alarming frequency across the United States. The government began writing rules to protect 5 million people whose jobs put them in special danger. Hospitals and homeless shelters, prisons and drug treatment centers -- all would be required to test their employees for TB, hand out breathing masks and quarantine those with the disease. These steps, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration predicted, could prevent 25,000 infections a year and 135 deaths.
> 
> By the time President Bush moved into the White House, the tuberculosis rules, first envisioned in 1993, were nearly complete. . . .
> 
> ...


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 26, 2004)

An interesting article here on the possible ramifications of the election outcome.

Disclaimer - not my views, but interesting, nonetheless.




> In his book _The Rise of the Vulcans_, James Mann writes of what he calls one of the most significant foreign policy documents in decades. Written in 1991 by the Pentagon's Zalmay Khalizad, the paper set forth "a new vision for a world dominated by a lone American superpower, actively working to make sure that no rival group or group of rivals would ever emerge."


Thoughts?


----------



## kelly keltner (Aug 26, 2004)

BlueDragon1981 said:
			
		

> Now this is not to get into a big debate or anything. I just want a name and perhaps a small reason why, but be careful, politics are touchy and I don't want any fighting.
> 
> So who do you want for next President
> 
> ...


 M. Thatcher former P. Minister of Brittain. OOOps I forgot she's not a U.S. citizen. She's gotta huge set of huevo's, Right up there with John Wayne. I guess I'll have to settle for Bush.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 26, 2004)

Thought this might be of interest:


Date:    The Kerry-Edwards Campaign
Mark Mellman, Senior Strategist
Where Bush-Cheney Needs To Be 
August 24, 2004  

As a senior strategist for John Kerry, I have prepared this update for the campaign's most active supporters as we enter the crucial weeks ahead. It's clear that your support has put this campaign in such a strong position as we enter a critical period. Your hard work, activism, and contributions have allowed our campaign to match the Bush campaign on the airwaves and on the ground. I can report that all you've done is now paying off when it counts the most.

By any standard, President Bush heads into his convention in a very weak position. His current position stems from the fact that voters judge the incumbent on his performance and on the state of the nation. By this measure, the president is in grave difficulty. To be counted a success, the Republican convention must fundamentally alter public attitudes on President Bush's stewardship of the country.

There are some basic benchmarks by which an incumbent's success can be measured as the campaign heads into the fall:

The average winning incumbent has had a job approval rating of 60%. Indeed, every incumbent who has won reelection has had his job approval in the mid-50's or higher at this point. In recent polling, Bush's average approval rating has been 48%. President Bush must emerge from his convention having dramatically altered public perception of his performance in office. 

In recent years, when incumbents have gone on to victory, 52% of voters, on average, said the country was on the right track. Now, just 37% think things are moving in the right direction. Thus, President Bush must convince the electorate that the nation is in much better shape than voters now believe to be the case. 

Every incumbent who has gone on to be reelected has had a double-digit lead at this point. 

Following their conventions, the average elected incumbent has held a 16-point lead, while winning incumbents have led by an average of 27 points. Bush will need a very substantial bounce to reach the mark set by his successful predecessors. 

Incumbents have enjoyed an average bounce in the vote margin of 8 points. 
On average, incumbents' share of the two-party vote has declined by 4 points between their convention and Election Day. 

President Bush has the opportunity to achieve an average, or even greater, bounce from his convention. Typically, elected incumbents go into their conventions with a 9-point lead, while incumbents who have gone on to win enter their conventions with a 21-point lead. Most current polls show the race quite close. This gives the president substantial room to bounce. By contrast, Senator Kerry entered his convention in a far stronger position than the average challenger. The average challenger goes into his convention 16 points behind, while Senator Kerry entered his convention with a 1-2 point lead. This gave Senator Kerry much less room to bounce.

However, as the data above makes clear, average is not enough for President Bush. Incumbents who went on to win reelection had an average lead of 27 points after their convention. Indeed, the average elected incumbent -- winners and losers -- had a lead of 16 points after their conventions. An average bounce would still leave Bush well below the historical mark set by other incumbents, particularly those who went on to victory.

Perhaps most important, the average elected incumbent experienced a 4-point drop in his share of the two-party vote from the post-convention polling to Election Day. Thus, to beat the odds, President Bush will need to be garnering 55% of the two-party vote after his convention. Anything less than that and the president will remain in grave political danger.



Regards,

Steve


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 26, 2004)

kelly keltner said:
			
		

> M. Thatcher former P. Minister of Brittain. OOOps I forgot she's not a U.S. citizen. She's gotta huge set of huevo's, Right up there with John Wayne. I guess I'll have to settle for Bush.


 I'm guessing, then, that you *like* the immense damage that Thatcher did to Britain's social fabric?

 "There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women,    and there are families."  -- Margaret Thatcher


----------



## kelly keltner (Aug 26, 2004)

I'd have to know the exact context of the quote that is being cited. I would also have to know how to measure damage done to "social fabric".


----------

