Challenge: convert me to a bush supporter

[Tgace]

Considering the number of "nutbar" actors and celebs that camp out on the Dem. side, I find that arguement funny.

 

[MartialArtist68]

This is all well and good, but the point of this post is for Bush supporters to present their reasons for supporting "Dubya". If you want to discuss something else, click the "start new thread" button.

Thanks,
pck

 

[michaeledward]

Threads drift.

Lots of personalities reading lots of comments in different ways. To try and control this is foolish. (Moderator's excepted ) If you don't like the way a thread is evolving, you can stop contributing, or bring it back to the topic yourself. It would probably be much more effective than telling everyone else what to do (where to go).

Peace

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Apparently, a lot of AOL users won't need converting:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39932

AOL users are on dial up lines, correct? Broadband cable has cut into their market share quite a bit.

Dial up service dominates in red states/rural settings. Broadband in urban/blue settings. I wouldn't be too quick to assume that this AOL survey indicates anything of significance.



Regards,


Steve

 

[Gary Crawford]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Crawford
the standard Democratic playbook-Divide and conquer.Divide as many people as possible,black vs. white,rich vs. poor,ect.It doesn't matter who is running,it always goes the same way.

I would argue that this is the standard *political* playbook, regardless of the major party involved. If you don't think Republicans practice these same techniques, then you don't closely follow politics.
I follow politics every day,thank you very much.Maybe it's just my prejudicial leaning,but when have Republicans devided people by anything other than politictical parties?uote:
Originally Posted by Gary Crawford
Does Pres. Bush cater to the super rich?Of course he does,and he is right to do so.70% of our econemy is created by these people on a daily basis,only 30% is goverment sevices paid for by THESE people.

First off, this statement is simply wrong. Do you think any of "our economy" is created by the actual *laborers" whose work generates the capital used by said 70%?

But, accepting this simplistic viewpoint for the sake of argument, are you still asserting that people with more money have a right to more control over government? To more power in our society? If so, can you then explain how this idea is compatible with the republic as defined in the US Constitution?
al parties? Who do you think pays the payroll for labor? No,I do not think these people should have more CONTROL over goverment,but since they are resposible for so many to be able to have a job,to pay the bills and so on.Their opinions are listened to more since they have much more to loose when things go bad,thus reducing Federal revenues and increasing unemployment.Take Bill Gates for example.How much money does he generate for the country?How many US jobs were established because of his succsess?How much does he give to charity?How many people are working for his competitors just because Microsoft has given everyone a leg up in the industry?Does what Bill Gates have to say mean more than what you or I do?Hell yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Crawford
Those of us who earn our money every day,those of us who strive to make more and more because we are better than most,and we have no reason to feel guilty for it.

Your statements carry an interesting mixture of classic Republican propaganda from the past 20+ years, and classic capitalist propaganda from a far longer tradition.

First off, why are people who make more money "better"? Is this the only measure of individual worth that you consider mentioning?

Second, why does believing that the wealthy should pay a fair share of society's costs necessary equal "hating the wealthy"?
This is a competitive capitolists society.Where those who are smarter and work harder and more hours win more than those who only do the bare minimum.Hard work is a very good measure of worth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Crawford
Then they know that that all they have to do is lay low until we move out,then they can take over again.

When were "the terrorists" in charge in Iraq previously? Was that when Saddam Hussein was using American-provided chemical weapons against Iranians and his own people, while Donald Rumsfeld was shaking his hand?
I am not talking about Iraq-Iran war days,only present day

 

[Gary Crawford]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Crawford
We are in the beginning of the great Jihad.We think of a war to last one to three years,Islam is commited to one thousand years.

I have a hard time understanding this statement. Do you mean that, without provocation, the entire world's population of Moslems spontaneously decided to go to war with everyone else on earth? Or something else enitrely? I'm genuinely curious.
You think they haven't been?They don't need provication,all they need is scripture and some radical respected leaders to lead them.Their entire goal is to dominate the world eventually.Take the Isreali-Palestinian ever lasting issue for example.Isreal on many occasions has agreed to all concessions in efforts to establish a Palestinian state,but that was never what they wanted.Palestinians will only accept death of all isreali's.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I continue to be astonished by the radically-new, un-American fantasy that it is the Rich People, the guys like Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch, who made this country and who contribute the considerable bulk of significant to human development. What tripe.

As for the notion that, "Democrats do it too," well, a) please show me where I sang the unvarnished praises of Democrats, and b) where it is that Democrats such as Gore, Kerrey, etc., have closely allied themselves with the religious nutcakes such as Rev. Moon and Hal Lindsey, offered "polls," on sites linked to flying saucer cults, made appointments in the White House as dictated by their wife's astrologer, and all the rest of this absurd, repressive, ugly claptrap.

And oh yes, please show me where it is that the Democrats have claimed that our current President lied about his service in Vietnam, made up stories about his heroism there, and inflated his claims about his three Purple Hearts...oh dear, my bad. I had forgotten that Hizzoner cannot possibly be attacked for exaggerating his service in Vietnam, since he employed his daddy's connections to evade any such service.

Perhaps you could show a set of Democratic attacks on the President's wife and children comparable to these smutty little harangues that the likes of Ann Coulter seem to find so engaging?

I carry no brief for Kerrey, who I simply consider a better choice that the current Administration. I am simply disgusted by these shabby, mean-spirited and graceless personal attacks--which, I would have thought, conservatives would have been the first to repudiate.

As for converting anyone to a Bush supporter, perhaps it's just having worked out yesterday--but I am reminded of the old joke about the soda jerk who finds Aladdin's Lamp, rubs it, and when the genie comes out, says, "Make me a chocolate malted."

 

[michaeledward]

Here's your chance to try and convert me.

I AM FILTHLY RICH !! I am not just in the top 1% ... I am in the top 1% of that 1%.

AND .....

I just saw this news report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/

WASHINGTON - Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

What Is Not To Love !!!!
Go George Go!





:bs:

only the news report in the statement above is true.
Mike

 

[Deflecting_the_Storm]

You me being so young I never have thought or really ever wanted to think about who and why they wanted to be the leader of this country. Because of how I see we as the american public act. I am not going to vote in this upcoming election along with the other 200 million who will not vote, and I have plenty of reasons why. First let me say that I have no idea what Kerry supports, and it seems that the democrats have a bash Bush campaign. I have asked alot of people why are they voting for Kerry and they say because they dont like Bush. Wow, thats a great reason to vote for a guy. Because you dont like the other one. What if Kerry has bunk ideas, or wants to change the way this country is run for the next 4 years, I still dont and have no idea what he wants to do with this country if he is elected. Bush on the other hand is a puppet. Like the rest of the presidents. But you can see it more than others. He really seems like he has no idea what he was doing. When his advisor leans over and tells him that we are under attack he just sits there and continues to read with children like nothing happened. I guess waiting for someone or something to come and tell him what to do. No one rushing in to take him to a safe place, him not just getting up and politely excusing himself and then taking care of the nation. The one thing that I really really really thought was disturbing was the satellite feed before he want on to address the nation after the attacks. He looked so scared, like he had no clue and didnt know if he himself could get through this. So why would I vote for either of them? If you want to look at past presidents for your decision well that would be crazy as well. Clinton, well the worst president ever in this country's history. Bush and Reagan, same administration. Reagan was out of his mind, and Bush just took over when he was done. Nixon, another man with clouded with the idea of destroying all other ways of life except for Capitalism. And Kennedy thought to be a great president, may of been a great leader, but got there using mob influence, and slept around with almost anything he could get a hold of. In the end we are just voting for a man, who is not perfect. But one man who has our intrests in mind. But if we all have different intrests, than can we all ever be satisfied?

 

[michaeledward]

You me being so young I never have thought or really ever wanted to think about who and why they wanted to be the leader of this country. Because of how I see we as the american public act. I am not going to vote in this upcoming election along with the other 200 million who will not vote, and I have plenty of reasons why. First let me say that I have no idea what Kerry supports, and it seems that the democrats have a bash Bush campaign. I have asked alot of people why are they voting for Kerry and they say because they dont like Bush. Wow, thats a great reason to vote for a guy. Because you dont like the other one. What if Kerry has bunk ideas, or wants to change the way this country is run for the next 4 years, I still dont and have no idea what he wants to do with this country if he is elected. Bush on the other hand is a puppet. Like the rest of the presidents. But you can see it more than others. He really seems like he has no idea what he was doing. When his advisor leans over and tells him that we are under attack he just sits there and continues to read with children like nothing happened. I guess waiting for someone or something to come and tell him what to do. No one rushing in to take him to a safe place, him not just getting up and politely excusing himself and then taking care of the nation. The one thing that I really really really thought was disturbing was the satellite feed before he want on to address the nation after the attacks. He looked so scared, like he had no clue and didnt know if he himself could get through this. So why would I vote for either of them? If you want to look at past presidents for your decision well that would be crazy as well. Clinton, well the worst president ever in this country's history. Bush and Reagan, same administration. Reagan was out of his mind, and Bush just took over when he was done. Nixon, another man with clouded with the idea of destroying all other ways of life except for Capitalism. And Kennedy thought to be a great president, may of been a great leader, but got there using mob influence, and slept around with almost anything he could get a hold of. In the end we are just voting for a man, who is not perfect. But one man who has our intrests in mind. But if we all have different intrests, than can we all ever be satisfied?

Wow!

Just, Wow!

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I just saw this news report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/

What Is Not To Love !!!!
Go George Go!

I'd be interested in what Mr. Mike thinks of this, given that he supports Dubya's tax plan. Perhaps he's making more than $285,000 a year or has a huge inheritance on the way. Mike?

The report indicates that the middle taxes after tax income increased 2.3%, whereas the rich had an after tax income increase of 10.1%. The bottom fifth had a net increase in after tax income of 1.6%. The gap widens once again.

Two days before this report another report showed the annual deficit had widened 28% to a total $69.2 billion.

A highly critical Heritage foundation study done earlier this year showed that if you threw out ALL of the extra spending on the War on Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan...if you threw out all extra military expenditures since 9-11, our government is still spending far more money than it takes in.

Note please, that the Heritage Foundation is a very conservative think tank.

Regards,


Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

Wow!

Just, Wow!

Now that is an Uber-Rant!

 

[Makalakumu]

I'd be interested in what Mr. Mike thinks of this, given that he supports Dubya's tax plan. Perhaps he's making more than $285,000 a year or has a huge inheritance on the way. Mike?

The report indicates that the middle taxes after tax income increased 2.3%, whereas the rich had an after tax income increase of 10.1%. The bottom fifth had a net increase in after tax income of 1.6%. The gap widens once again.

Two days before this report another report showed the annual deficit had widened 28% to a total $69.2 billion.

A highly critical Heritage foundation study done earlier this year showed that if you threw out ALL of the extra spending on the War on Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan...if you threw out all extra military expenditures since 9-11, our government is still spending far more money than it takes in.

Note please, that the Heritage Foundation is a very conservative think tank.

Regards,


Steve

I know from talking to other conservatives that many are not happy at all with GW Bush. If there were a third party on the right, I think we would see the Exodus. Notice the cancellation of primaries throughout the country by the RNC. What this shows me is that the Bush administration will squash debate in their own party.

upnorthkyosa

 

[MisterMike]

I'd be interested in what Mr. Mike thinks of this, given that he supports Dubya's tax plan. Perhaps he's making more than $285,000 a year or has a huge inheritance on the way. Mike?

The report indicates that the middle taxes after tax income increased 2.3%, whereas the rich had an after tax income increase of 10.1%. The bottom fifth had a net increase in after tax income of 1.6%. The gap widens once again.

These statements seems to be what the hubbub is about:

The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

So, even though our tax rates went down, the middle class as a whole is paying more of their "share" now while the top 1% pays less than they used to.

BUT, 1% of the population is paying 20.1% of this country's taxes while the middle class (70% of the country?) is paying 19.5%.

1% of the population paying more than 70%. I'd still say there is nothing to complain about - unless you are in the 1%. (Hee hee)