LEADERSHIP MEANS MAKING CHOICES.

[RAYMOND]

LEADERSHIP MEANS MAKING CHOICES.
1 Year Ago: Kerry/Edwards Vote Against $87 billion for Troops in Iraq.

The Choice John Kerry Made on October 17th, 2003

John Kerry and his running mate John Edwards became two of only four U.S. Senators who voted for the use of force resolution against Iraq and against the $87 billion supplemental supporting our troops.

So far Kerry has explained his Oct. 17th vote nine different ways and has said everything from "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" to declaring he was "proud" he voted against it. Most recently Kerry said it was a "mistake" how he "talked about" his vote against the $87 billion. The real "mistake" was Kerry's decision to vote for the war and then vote against supporting our troops serving in that war.

The Consequences of the Kerry Flip-Flop on $87 Billion

Soldiers Support President Bush: "69% said they place greater trust in Bush to handle the responsibilities of commander-in-chief...69% had a "favorable" view of Bush, while 29% professed a favorable view of Kerry. On character traits, Bush drew higher ratings than the Massachusetts senator for being caring, knowledgeable, optimistic, consistent and a strong leader" (Washington Post, 10/16/04 reporting on University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, 9/22-10/5).

 

[Eddie Haskell]

So that means Bush is pro-choice.

Ed

 

[RAYMOND]

pro life eddie

 

[Clem D]

Bush isn't concerned about Bin Laden

 

[RAYMOND]

Bin Laden
is dead

 

[Clem D]

yea ok

 

[Eddie Haskell]

So is Mr. Rogers.

Ed

 

[THE KOD]

So are Saddam Husseins two sons.

Uday and Muday

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Arthur Godfrey and Bill Bixby (who was Eddies father).

Eddie

 

[THE KOD]

yea and Rodney Dangerfield

 

[Chanman]

Ward Cleaver :sadwave:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/our_plan_for_america.pdf

 

[dr. freeze]

what is Bush supposed to do? say that he is shaking in his boots from fear of Bin Laden?

hey if anyone is in this country has anything to fear from extreme muslim fasciist terrorism it is Bush...he represents America and our fight....AL Quaeda would like nothing more than to kill him....

for him to say that Bin Laden doesn't worry him IN THE CONTEXT WITH WHICH HE SAID IT shows leadership and courage...not fear

but Clem king of spin would like you to think otherwise

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

for him to say that Bin Laden doesn't worry him IN THE CONTEXT WITH WHICH HE SAID IT shows leadership and courage...not fear

but Clem king of spin would like you to think otherwise

It was just a desperate attempt by the Kerry Camp to SPIN....nothing more, nothing less.
:clap:

John Kerry is just flat out STUPID! He thinks catching or killing Bin Laden is going to solve all problems. HE thinks all you have to do is cut off the head of the snake.

Thank god we only have 2 more weeks of this JAckass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :142lmao:

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Is Bin Laden dead???
He very well may be. What if he was indeed killed by US Airstrikes in 2002? Many military experts say he indeed was. Even Bill Clinton went on record in Boston of that year and said...."I think he's dead"
Then would John Kerry take back all the shit he said??
Guess we will never know.

What we do know is this is a man who depended on being in front of the camera trying to rally muslims for the jihad for the past 10 years. He had an ego, and he relied on it. He was always the one making statements and video taping himself so AL Jeezerra could suck his balls and throw it on the air.....SO what ever happened to UBL? Has he been heard of since Torra Bora?.....(not sure...anyone know?)

. Even if we indeed killed him it wouldn't have any effect on this jihad shit. Terror is a global problem and UBL is not in ultimate charge anymore. Bin Laden's gov. is thrashed. It's a religeous thing. JIHAD.
Thank god the Bush administration has KILLED or BROUGHT TO JUSTICE 75% of that deck of cards.

ADIOS KERRY.....

 

[djv]

If he's dead we would all know. I hope the congress cuts off all money to Bush and his war. Now that we know it was all a lie. So it has to end before it goes any longer then it already has. If Iraq wants elections and different government let them take care of it, there free. If they wany to fight as they have for 2000 years let them, there free. What the chit buisness is it of ours. Man just think what we could do for jobs here at home with 200 billion. Just think what we could do for our Security at home. Hanging out in Iraq does nothing for us.

 

[dr. freeze]

DJV the Marxist thinks the government should provide jobs for us all.....

Unfortunately for him we do not live in China....the government is responsible for defense and transportation

They can stay away from the rest of my life thank you.

 

[djv]

If thats all the gov would give us that would be just fine. I wonder tho how would your school run. What about security. For get your week thing on defense. I mean your local security.
The gov should not hire anyone but have a plan to help job growth. That of course works. And tax loop holes is not one.
And of all things why should the gov be involved with transportion. Why is that ok with you.

 

[dr. freeze]

well we need roads don't you think?

federal government should pay for roads and defense...nothing else.....leave the rest up to the states and local governments...

keep them out of my life

 

[kosar]

well we need roads don't you think?

federal government should pay for roads and defense...nothing else.....leave the rest up to the states and local governments...

keep them out of my life

From The Free Republic-

President Bush may be repeating the sins of his father. Although elected on a Reaganesque, tax-cutting platform, the White House has veered to the left. President Bush has signed a bill to regulate political speech, issued protectionist taxes on imported steel and lumber, backed big-spending education and farm bills, and endorsed massive new entitlements for mental health care and prescription drugs. When the numbers are added up, in fact, it looks like President Bush is less conservative than President Clinton.


It makes little sense to discourage one's core supporters prior to a mid-term election. Yet that is the result when a Republican president expands government, which Bush is doing. Also, academic research on voting patterns shows that a president is most likely to get re-elected if voters are enjoying an increase in disposable income. Yet making government bigger is not a recipe for economic growth. After all, there is a reason why Hong Kong grows so fast and France is an economic basket case. But you can't tell that to the Bush administration.


Administration officials privately admit that much of the legislation moving through Congress represents bad public policy. Yet they argue either that everything must take a back seat to the war on terror (much as the first Bush administration treated the war against Iraq) or that compromises are necessary to neutralize issues such as education. But motives and rationalizations do not repeal the laws of economics.


In less than two years, President Bush has presided over more government expansion than took place during eight years of Bill Clinton. For instance:



The education bill expands federal involvement in education. The administration originally argued that the new spending was a necessary price to get vouchers and other reforms. Yet the final bill boosted spending and was stripped of almost all reform initiatives. And there is every reason to believe that this new spending will be counter-productive, like most other federal money spent on education in the past 40 years. Children and taxpayers are the big losers.


The farm bill is best characterized as a bipartisan orgy of special interest politics. Making a mockery of the Freedom to Farm Act, the new legislation boosts farm spending to record levels. Old subsidies have been increased and new subsidies created. Perhaps worst of all, the administration no longer has the moral credibility to pressure the European Union to reform its socialized agricultural policies. Taxpayers and consumers are the big losers.


The protectionist decisions on steel and lumber imports make free traders wish Bill Clinton were still president. These restrictions on world commerce have undermined the productivity of U.S. manufacturers by boosting input prices and creating massive ill will in the international community. American products already have been targeted for reciprocal treatment. Consumers and manufacturers are the big losers.


The campaign finance law is an effort to protect the interests of incumbent politicians by limiting free speech rights during elections. The administration openly acknowledged that the legislation is unconstitutional, yet was unwilling to make a principled argument for the Bill of Rights and fair elections. Voters and the Constitution are the big losers.


New health care entitlements are akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. Medicare and Medicaid already are consuming enormous resources, and the burden of these programs will become even larger when the baby boom generation retires. Adding a new prescription drug benefit will probably boost spending by $1 trillion over 10 years. A mandate for mental health coverage will drive up medical costs, making insurance too expensive for many more families.

Those policy decisions make government bigger and more expensive. They also slow the economy and hurt financial markets -- read the headlines lately? For all his flaws, President Clinton's major policy mistake was the 1993 tax increase. Other changes, such as the welfare reform bill, NAFTA, GATT, farm deregulation, telecommunications deregulation, and financial services deregulation, moved policy in a market-oriented direction.


Perhaps most importantly, there was a substantial reduction in federal spending as a share of gross domestic product during the Clinton years. Using the growth of domestic spending as a benchmark, Clinton was the second most conservative president of the post-World War II era, trailing only Ronald Reagan.


To be sure, much of the credit for Clinton's good policy probably belongs to the Republican Congress, but that is not an excuse for bad policy today. And on one positive note, President Bush has "promised" to fight for partial privatization of Social Security. Yet, so far, President Bush has not vetoed a single piece of legislation. Needless to say, this means it will be rather difficult to blame "big-spending" Democrats if the economy continues to sputter.

 

[dr. freeze]

for certain Bush is giving away way too much $$....he is way more of a liberal than a conservative

our solution == John Kerry?

an unabashed socialist globalist?

unbelievable....