Reasons to Vote 4 Bush and the MAJOR ISSUES!!!!!!!!!!!

[ctownguy]

Well stevie then I guess you'll agree that JFK's economic plan on taxes was also unfair and unjustified as he also believed in the people keeping their own money, but most of all relieving the tax burden on business and corporations to allow them to create jobs and get the economy booming

Yea I guess his administration had their heads up their :moon: too.


Freeze, talking to stevie is like talking to a wall, leave him to his liberal handbook views, they are worthless just like the most views on the left are. :shocked: :grins:

 

[Scott4USC]

djv

If O'Reilly went why does he keep saying he will not go. And Scott if you think Bush 41 had it going the right way for this country boy have you been brain washed. And when Clinton left office Unemployment was still less then 5%.
And he had 22 million job growth in his 8 years. I don't care if he was lucky or not. The guy we got now is still down over 2.5 million jobs. And his tax cuts are just about shot. If you don't take in what you need to pay your bills what happens Scott. Think about it. How long can you live spending more then you make till your dead broke and lose everything. Sooner or later your not allowed to borrow. Unless you don't mind paying real high interest rates because you are a risk. The cycle is starting.

You seem to be unaware that we have been experiencing a solid economic growth in the last 8 months. The addition of 1 million new jobs was used to help offset the 2 ? million jobs that were lost during the recession that started at the end of the Clinton administration and was deepened by 9/11. If you cannot understand that, you need to take a course called economic 101.

The economy cycles up and down. There is never a prolong period of boom or recession. During Clinton?s 8 years we never had a 9/11 which certainly would have negatively impacted the economy.

Don?t worry; the unemployment rate will soon be under 5% as the current economic GROWTH continues. Perhaps by election time.

How can you engage in a war without running up deficits? It has never been done in all prior wars in this country. If you suggest in not engaging in a war against countries who are dedicated to destroy us for fear of higher interest rates, I suggest you fear for your life first.

 

[Scott4USC]

StevieD

Bush gave the tax cut to the wrong folks. Giving the rich more money does not create jobs. Because when you give the rich money they are not going to go out and buy something with it. You need to give the tax break to the working stiff. The guy who is saving up for a new stove, his car has 150,000 miles on it and he could really need some new clothes but he has a daughter that is starting college and all his money is going to fund that. Give this guy a tax break and he will spend the money. He will buy that new stove that will create jobs for the stove makers. That creates a snowball effect which will spur on the economy. The trickle down theory aint working.
What is helping Bush is the wars and the low interest rates. A lot of working stiffs refinanced to take advantage of the low rates. They bought things with their money and created a few jobs. But that money is gone and rates are on the way up. A lot of working stiffs will find themselves with upside down mortgages as rates rise. They will owe more on the house than the houses are worth. The middle class is in desperate need of tax relief. The rich....well they did pretty good under Clinton too.

The actual tax rate cuts should be across the board. It is true the upper class would prob. not spend their tax savings but they would invest it. For example, if they only put it in a savings account, that would increase the money for loans and it would keep interest rates low. Another example is investing in the stock market. It would provide more capital money to improve a company?s product or produce it cheaper.

*ctownguy thanks for the nice words in your previous post. Forgot to mention it. Suprised me because you and I have had our differences.

 

[Nick Douglas]

Scott,

Bush knew the financial consequences of going to war. The fact is that Afghanistan did not attack WTC. Now, I'll grant you that both regimes were in need of elimination for various reasons. Still, Bush & the neo-cons had a choice of what to do.

The impetuous solution is to barge in there guns ablaze, wipe out the old regimes and install America-friendly leaders. That's what Bush did. The alternate method would be to use diplomacy and, as a last resort, physical force to assist the people of those countries in a revolution that would install leaders that the people want. The problem with that, of course, is that often times foreign populations choose leaders who are unfriendly to America. See also: Fidel Castro, Imam Khomeini and Kim Il Sung.

Both solutions have plusses and minuses but there is always a choice. Heck, there is even the choice to not invade anyone, but that would be no fun to a neo-con.

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

For example, if they only put it in a savings account, that would increase the money for loans and it would keep interest rates low.

:nono:

Another example is investing in the stock market. It would provide more capital money to improve a company?s product or produce it cheaper.

:142lmao:

Economics 201's gonna be an eye opener for you.

 

[Scott4USC]

BobbyBlueChip

You just say no?????

Anybody can say "no" but you fail to explain why. If you say a reason why, I can evaluate the reason. An intelligent person will explain why they disagree with someone. Explain what was wrong with the analysis. Don't just say no.

Banks accept deposits so they can loan that money out and keep the difference between the interest they pay to the depositor and the interst they charge to the borrower.

It is called supply and demand.

 

[Scott4USC]

Nick Douglas

Clinton's choice was to do nothing. To allow larger and more deadly assaults to occur in our country.

Clinton's solution was to do nothing. And I also suspect the same for Kerry.

The alternate method would be to use diplomacy and, as a last resort, physical force to assist the people of those countries in a revolution that would install leaders that the people want.

To even think to use diplomacy is ridiculous after they bombed the WTC. Should we have negotiated with the Japanese after the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

The only solution is to wipe out the terrorists wherever they may be. These people hate you and me equally and want to kill both of us while you are trying to negotiate with them.

You think the people in Iraq would have conducted a revolution against Saddam?

You think the people in Afghanistan with their pitchforks would conduct a revolution against the Taliban?

*You did not answer my previous post and my question "Where do you get your
"un-biased" news.

 

[Nick Douglas]

There is no such thing as unbiased news. I'm not going to discuss the best places to get news in a public forum. The nature of those sites will open up too many arguments that will distract from the point of the discussion. AIM me if you want to know.

Scott, again you make comparisons that don't fit. No country attacked WTC. A group of individuals who were not acting on behalf of any official governing body did it.

To answer your questions about the Iraqi and Afghani people, I'd say, "Yes", they would have been in favor of ousting those governments if given the resources from the U.S. to do so. The fact that the U.S. wanted those people ousted is good. The reason for the strong resistance is not the fact that the U.S. took down the leadership, it is because the U.S. continues to occupy the country and put leaders in place who fall in line with U.S. interests.

 

[auspice]

Nick

Appreciate your posts. You might want to check out the link below from the Center of Public Integrity. It's a nonpartisian organization with some of the most informative articles I've come accross. They're not a 'spin shop' website but rather one of the last true investagative outfits left. Good luck.


http://www.publicintegrity.com/default.aspx

 

[wareagle]

 

[Chanman]

As far as Bill O'Reilly & F9/11 goes, I believe he went and walked out of the theatre shortly thereafter.

This sums up the minimum wages controversy for me= http://slate.msn.com/id/2103486

“You know in my town the small businesses that everyone wanted to protect? They were the people that supported all the Right Wing groups. They were the Republicans in the town, they were in the Kiwanas, the Chamber of Commerce- people that kept the town all white.- the small hardware salesman, the small clothing store salespersons, Jesse the Barber who signed his name three different times on three different petitions to recall me from the school board. F*ck all these small businesses- F*ck ’em all! Bring in the chains. The small businesspeople are the rednecks that run the town and suppress the people. F*ck ’em all.
Thats how I feel…Michael Moore.

 

[Dogphish]

Bozo 1 or Bozo 2

Bozo 1 or Bozo 2

Morning all, had to throw a comment in.....the sad truth regarding our current system is that it has been horribly corrupted.....we are offered a pitiful selection. On one side you have "Sonny Boy" and the true president, Cheney, and on the other side you have Ted Kennedy's pick, Dukakis, er I mean Kerry.. and lacking any charisma whatsoever he has saddled up with "Smiley"......I do not have the answer, I voted Perot, and his sucking sound remarks are now fact...as far as new jobs..those are more Walmart greeters and Hamburger flippers...or are they conveniently produced election year pap ???

 

[kosar]

the fact that saddam paid the families of suicide bombers $thousands to have a family memeber(usually a teenager) blow themselves up & kill innocent people with them is enough to take saddam out.

AR,

No offense, but that's seems like a pretty flip attitude. Throwing billions of dollars away and essentially ordering the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis because Saddam paid money to families of Palestinian terrorists who blow things up in Israel? Wow. That perspective seems a little off.

 

[kosar]

Anyone get the feeling that Scott's news sources come entirely through email

I do. Yes.

 

[kosar]

-Increased defense spending. It is necessary to increase defense spending after 9/11. No question about that. Obviously to continue war on terrorism.

-Pre-emptive military action on countries who threaten the security of the United States. That is what republicans want. Not just because the country is unfriendly or strategically desirable.

[
-To stabilize the Middle East.

-The Patriot Act was necessary because of 9/11 and was overwhelmingly supported by democrats as well as Republicans.

-As far as the issue on separation from the UN. The UN separated from the US. They do not support the US policies. Even under Clinton they did not support military action in Bosnia.

*No terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.


Viva Bush!!!!!!

*If increased defense spending was actually spent on fighting terrorism, I would tend to agree with that. When it's spent on frivolous wars, it kind of doesn't make a lot of sense.

*Pre-emptive attacks on threats. Ummmmmm.....what kind of a threat to us was Saddam? Yeah, that's a great reason to vote for Bush. Pre-emptive attacks on non-threats.

*Stabilize the Middle East? LMFAO

*Patriot Act? If you think this is good for the country or helps fight terrorism, then I can't help you. Stop thinking like a brainwashed robot (no offense Freeze) and stop allowing yourself to be scared shitless by this admin with their silly 'alert levels' and assertions that the 'Patriot Act' is anything more than a ruse.

*The UN. We only have use for the UN when they agree with us. Otherwise we ignore them. There is no mandate that just because we're America that everybody else has to agree with us. In fact, it looks like everybody else was right about Iraq and we're standing here with our dick in our hand begging for the UN's help after totally ignoring their information and advice.

*No attacks since 9/11. I always love this one. Yes, almost a whole 3 years has gone by since there has been an attack on our soil. There have been 2 major attacks on US soil perpetrated by a foreign country in our nations history(The first WTC bombing killed a dozen people, same as Columbine). One in 1941 and one in 2001. 60 years between attacks with one of them on Dubya's watch. While I don't blame Bush for 9/11, I think it borders on absurdity to give him props for no attacks in 3 years. A better way to look at it is that there has been 1 attack in three years and it just happened to be the worst attack in Americas history.

Yeah, 'Viva Bush'.

 

[seymour]

There is no reason to vote for Bush other than keeping taxes low - especially if you make a decent amount of money - for this reason alone I may vote for Bush.

Other than that this has been 4 years of failure - stabalizing the middle east is a joke right? have you watched Israel and Palestine that last 3 years? do you have any clue the anti-US sentiment Bush has created in the Middle East? This guy is horrible - I say impeach Bush and Cheney and put the only member of this adminstration with any dignity in charge - Colin Powell

 

[Scott4USC]

kosar :nooo:

-Pre-emptive military action on countries who threaten the security of the United States. That is what republicans want. Not just because the country is unfriendly or strategically desirable.

Kerry and Edwards thought Saddam was a threat! Both voted for the Iraq war and came to that conclusion with the same information that Bush had.

*Stabilize the Middle East? LMFAO

IF the Iraqi people govern themselves through a democratic form of government, how could that not stabilize the Middle East?

*Patriot Act? If you think this is good for the country or helps fight terrorism, then I can't help you. Stop thinking like a brainwashed robot (no offense Freeze) and stop allowing yourself to be scared shitless by this admin with their silly 'alert levels' and assertions that the 'Patriot Act' is anything more than a ruse.

Well it is not just me who thinks this was good for the country. It was the overwhelming majority of the Demon-crats in Congress who helped pass it.
Are they brainwashed robots? :142lmao:

*The UN. We only have use for the UN when they agree with us. Otherwise we ignore them. There is no mandate that just because we're America that everybody else has to agree with us. In fact, it looks like everybody else was right about Iraq and we're standing here with our dick in our hand begging for the UN's help after totally ignoring their information and advice.

The UN agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was a danger in the Middle East. The UN did not enforce their own sanctions that Saddam had violated. Therefore the US had to act alone.


This is the kicker....

*No attacks since 9/11. I always love this one. Yes, almost a whole 3 years has gone by since there has been an attack on our soil. There have been 2 major attacks on US soil perpetrated by a foreign country in our nations history(The first WTC bombing killed a dozen people, same as Columbine). One in 1941 and one in 2001. 60 years between attacks with one of them on Dubya's watch. While I don't blame Bush for 9/11, I think it borders on absurdity to give him props for no attacks in 3 years. A better way to look at it is that there has been 1 attack in three years and it just happened to be the worst attack in Americas history.

You discount the first WTC bombing in 1993 because it only killed a dozen people? WHAT A MORON!!! That could have killed thousands like the second WTC attack (9/11), which was 11 years apart.

What the hell are you smoking? Since the first WTC bombing in 1993, there were numerous bombings of US Embassy's "which are technically on US soil" and the sinking of the USS Cole. Did you forget about that? All together resulting in 100's of deaths. All without a credible response from Clinton which lead to the 9/11 attack. The fact that there has not been an attack in the last 3 years is remarkable, even to the liberal pundits in the major network news. (because they all predicted there would be another one by this time)

VIVA BUSH!!!!
:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[Turfgrass]

Freeze, I don't know where you get those figures and they really don't make any difference to me what they are. Reagan reduced a tax rate of almost 70% on the rich.

I was just curious about...how much money does one have to make to be considered poor...then move to the next CLASS to be MIDDLE CLASS...then at what point does one turn into the hated...filthy...disgusting RICH?

I just wanted to know what the standard was.

 

[djv]

Scott the Cole was not sunk. You must have visited the wrong website. And yes unemployment is high.

 

[kosar]

Scott,

Your discourse about politics is every bit as short-sighted and inane as your thoughts about college football.

*A lot of people thought Saddam could become a threat somewhere down the road, including Clinton, Kerry, Edwards etc...The difference is that only one person decided to abandon the hunt for terrorists to oust Saddam as if the wrold was about to come to an end. Containment was obviously working and Saddam was not an urgent matter.

*Let me know when Iraq has that peaceful, secular democracy rolling. It won't happen. To suggest that we are stabilizing the Middle East is absurd.

*Yes, a lot of Democrats supported this action and the funding for it. They were wrong also, but they weren't the ones pulling the pin.

*The UN repeatedly said that there was no evidence of WMD. I have no idea wtf you're talking about. The UN was right.

*I wouldn't say I 'discount' the 1993 WTC bombing, but there have been two large scale attacks on this country, in this country, and that wasn't one of them.

*As DJV pointed out, the Cole was not sunk. Don't those people that send you these chain emails have a fact checker?

*You mention that 9/11 was Clintons fault because of a lack of proper response to embassy bombings. If another major attack happens in the next few years, I assume that you'll attribute that to Bushs weak response after 9/11. I don't consider shifting almost all resources to attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and was not an immediate threat in any way, a proper response.