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

[dr. freeze]

I like how Mr. Douglas thinks that police forces and fire departments willl get more $$ if we are taxed higher.

Mr Douglas fails to realize that if we are taxed higher, less money is spent in the cities we live in. This means less revenue for the sales tax and city government revenue drops.

Less revenue in the city also means less income for proprietors generating less income tax. Then the government is even more broke, people have less incentive to work hard, and less freedom to live making consumer choices and moving products.

Only a fool could subscribe to such a system.....or a communist.

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

Scott,

It's not only that you get all of your information from email, you're also so low on the social ladder, that your emails are 6 months old. Your arguments are so 2003. I agree that John Kerry did speak eloguently when talking about the need to use force in Iraq. Here's the text of the full speech:

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days ? to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent ? and I emphasize "imminent" ? threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution."

Not one quote that you will find above has the intention of saying that we will act outside of UN mandate, kill civilians, and give radical muslims the ammunition to recruit a whole new generation of killers (who won't be found on a deck of cards)

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

Oh, and if you can post one of the "Poll(s) after poll(s) shows overwhelming US support from citizens from Iraq" , I'd be interested in reading it. (make sure it's from the last 5 months)

 

[Scott4USC]

Thankyou BobbyBlueChip for putting the whole text because it re-enforces the fact that there was no argument among the international community (ie. UN) and the demon-crats that Saddam had to be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction. Which now Kosar can finally understand.

I didn't get this information from e-mail, I got it from the internet. I needed to get this infomation from 2003 to prevent Kosar from re-writing history, which liberals need to do in order to justify their failed policies and their mythical view of the world.

I agree with most of what Kerry said, including his contention that every nation has the right to act pre-emptively for self-defense. Where I disagree is that a threat has to be imminent and grave. Kerry acknowledges that the threat from Saddam was grave because of his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction but he said the threat was not imminent. You can't wait until a threat is imminent, because it will be too late to prevent it.

You said....

Not one quote that you will find above has the intention of saying that we will act outside of UN mandate, kill civilians, and give radical Muslims the ammunition to recruit a whole new generation of killers (who won't be found on a deck of cards)

Perhaps Kerry would not act outside the UN but he would still be scratching his bushy hair as the UN does not have the balls to enforce their own resolution. It shouldn't surprise anyone that France and Germany opposed military action against Iraq, as we find out later they were involved in the oil for food scam and it was in their best interest to keep Saddam in power.

In response to the "killing of civilians."
No way in hell you can have a military action without killing some civilians as I am sure occurred during the Clinton wars in Bosnia and the ousting of Milocovich.

and give radical Muslims the ammunition to recruit a whole new generation of killers (who won't be found on a deck of cards)

Radical Muslims don't need any ammunition to recruit because they hate you & me, and the American way of life. They will not stop until they destroy us or we destroy them!

 

[Scott4USC]

Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq

A lack of jobs is one of the most immediate problems in Iraq
An opinion poll suggests most Iraqis feel their lives have improved since the war in Iraq began about a year ago.

A wide-ranging poll commissioned by the BBC in association with other international broadcasters has given a fresh insight into the views of Iraqis a year after the US-led war. Of 2,652 Iraqis surveyed, the majority said life has got better since the war. Even more expected further improvements.

Seventy per cent of people said that things were going well or quite well in their lives, while only 29% felt things were bad.

And 56% said that things were better now than they were before the war.

BBC News

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Looks like cut and dried to me--a consensus is those who work and earn would like to keep as much as possible--those who don't want it taken from them and spread to those who don't.
There are some good points I agree with from the left however.

Ocelot
"Did it ever occur to your pea-brain that a lot of these people may be single mothers whose husbands abandoned their kids? Who can't afford child-care, a car, car insurance, rent. "

I agree except you can delete husband--as there is group that has about 70% out of wedlock birthrate--which (quess what) vote bout 90% democratic ticket. I wonder why---

" record 1.3 million babies were born out of wedlock in 1999, marking the first time that a full one-third of all U.S. births were to unwed mothers. Unwed birth rates were highest for black women, with 69.1 percent of births to black women occurring out of wedlock, compared with 42.2 percent for Hispanics and 22.1 percent for non-Hispanic whites. "The sole reason that welfare exists is the collapse of marriage," Mr. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation said. "It is a huge national tragedy that this country spends $1,000 subsidizing single parenthood for every $1 it spends trying to promote marriage and prevent illegitimacy."


Nick
"Genuinely rich people do more to get their taxes reduced than any other group of people"
Makes sense to me--there are appoximately 167 million voters with no tax liabilty whatsoever. Can't really see them working on reducing something they don't have.

We are approaching the point where voters adversely affected by the income tax are a minority that can be exploited to the hilt. There are 129 million taxpayers. The top 5 percent of income earners (6.5 million people) already bear 54 percent of the income tax burden. The top 25 percent (32 million people) pay 83 percent of the total personal income tax collection.
The remaining 75 percent of taxpayers (97 million people) bear only 17 percent of the income tax burden, and 70 million voters have no income tax liability whatsoever.
With 167 million voters with little or no income tax liability and 32 million burdened with 83 percent of the liability, have we achieved the tyranny of the majority? Will the political temptation to plunder the minority and to turn them into tax slaves destroy the creativity and productivity of the American economy?"
Paul Craig Roberts

It's all about which side of the fence your on. Those that prosper want to keep it ---those that don't think they are entitled to it.
There are 3 elements I have compassion for the elderly-the young and the disabled--other than that we are born equal with 24 hours in a day--how we choose to spend that time will dictate our life.

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

Dogs,

Assuming the figures are correct "there are appoximately 167 million voters with no tax liabilty whatsoever" would be referring to "income." The working poor still have payroll taxes to pay. And while the top 5 percent of income earners may bear 54% of the burden, they also receive most of the income (I doubt that it's 54%, it's probably closer to 40%)

The problem I have with most of these types of analyses is that they ignore payroll tax and never talk of the huge amounts of income that the top 10% of the country make in compared to the other 90%.

And Scott4USC, a poll in the last 5 months, please

 

[ocelot]

Turfgrass, its a good thing Bill Gates has you looking out for him or we "commies" would take 100% of everything he owns...sure, that's what we all want. In case you hadn't heard Gates and Buffett and other of the very wealthy came out against the Bush tax cuts and did not feel they were unfairly taxed. And in case you hadn't heard Kerry has stated he will repeal only the cuts for the very top. Perhaps you are unaware that the very highest tax rates are only applied against income above and beyond certain threshholds...it isn't like anyone is paying 50 or 75 or whatever % on their entire income. I might suggest that if you can't grasp the implications of that a review of high school algebra might be in order.

Incidentally, has anyone ever noticed how the right is quick to whimper about "class warfare" being conducted by the left whenever tax issues (as 1 example) come up, while at the very same time conducting it themselves at every opportunity?

Here is an example of how sad things have gotten: In Georgia both Republicans in a race for a vacated poliical seat are publicly accusing the 1 Democrat of being - now get this - "too moderate".

So now its a crime to be a moderate? We are in deep doodoo with this level of retardation being the norm.

Signed,
Leftist Elitist Communist

 

[djv]

So to sum it up not many reasons to vote for Bush. He has show-en he knows how to cut taxes and go to war and that's it?
And on taxes he does not even understand what it will do in the end to us.

 

[Turfgrass]

Turfgrass, its a good thing Bill Gates has you looking out for him or we "commies" would take 100% of everything he owns...sure, that's what we all want. In case you hadn't heard Gates and Buffett and other of the very wealthy came out against the Bush tax cuts and did not feel they were unfairly taxed. And in case you hadn't heard Kerry has stated he will repeal only the cuts for the very top. Perhaps you are unaware that the very highest tax rates are only applied against income above and beyond certain threshholds...it isn't like anyone is paying 50 or 75 or whatever % on their entire income. I might suggest that if you can't grasp the implications of that a review of high school algebra might be in order.

Incidentally, has anyone ever noticed how the right is quick to whimper about "class warfare" being conducted by the left whenever tax issues (as 1 example) come up, while at the very same time conducting it themselves at every opportunity?

Here is an example of how sad things have gotten: In Georgia both Republicans in a race for a vacated poliical seat are publicly accusing the 1 Democrat of being - now get this - "too moderate".

So now its a crime to be a moderate? We are in deep doodoo with this level of retardation being the norm.

Signed,
Leftist Elitist Communist

Well I guess I'm voting for sKerry......I mean if Gates and Buffett don't think they're being taxed too much then why should I complain.

At least you got your signature right.

 

[ctownguy]

Hiliarious Turf, they will never get it.

 

[djv]

Heck you want to here the rich really bitch. Just have a national sales tax.

 

[Turfgrass]

Heck you want to here the rich really bitch. Just have a national sales tax.

Could you enlighten us on why the RICH would bitch with the national sales tax?

 

[Scott4USC]

kosar :nono: :nono: :nono:

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

After people read this post, your poltical mythology will be considered inane.

*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.

You seem to think only Bush wanted to oust Saddam. There were many Demon-crats that hopped on board. Here?s a list of prominent Demon-crats & what they said from Clinton to sen john kerry leading up to the war in early ?03!!!!! ( I can?t give a more eloquent reason for the Iraq war than kerry?s speech )

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." >- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Anyone who can read & comprehend can clearly see that these Demon-crats felt that WMD?s were real & the threat of Saddam was real, which had to be dealt with swiftly & with force if necessary.
*******************************

*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.

WHY NOT???

Are you some Middle East expert that you can confidently say with certainty that Iraq will never be a peaceful, democratic country. I think you wish it doesn?t happen, so Bush won?t have the legacy of creating lasting peace in the Middle East, & win a Nobel prize in the process.

*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.

So what!!! They supported the legislation, they also take responsibility for it. Although I have no problem with it.

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

If the UN felt there were no WMD?s, then why did the UN Security Counsil pass Resolution 1441 just before the war???

Read highlighted excerpt:
Resolution 1441 (2002)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4644th meeting, on
8 November 2002
The Security Council,

Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
*************

LA Times article : UN demands that Iraq disarm just prior to the war. Why do this if the UN said there were no WMD's???

Obviously, the UN thought they were there, like the DEMS & BUSH.

SHOWDOWN WITH IRAQ; Iraq Bends a Bit on Missiles; Baghdad agrees 'in principle' to destroy arms but might not meet the Saturday deadline. A draft U.N. report cites Iraqi shortcomings.; [HOME EDITION]
Maggie Farley. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 28, 2003. pg. A.1

The destruction of the missiles has become a crucial test case of Iraq's compliance with U.N. demands that it disarm. If Iraq misses the Saturday deadline to begin the process, Blix could make an emergency report to the Security Council that could lead them to find Iraq in "material breach" of the resolution mandating Baghdad's disarmament. That finding could trigger military action.

*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.

It sure seems you are ignoring the ?93 WTC bombing, US embassy bombings, & the bombing of the USS Cole, much like Clinton did, which escalated to 9/11 without the ?proper response? from Clinton.

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

Alright, the USS Cole did not sink, but was severely damaged with 17 sailors killed and 39 injured.. I guess that?s not enough for you liberals to take notice.

*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.

I believe the DEM quotes above should satisfy any liberal about the threat Saddam imposed.The Bush response was appropriate and with the necessary increased security measures required by the circumstances and fully endorsed by the Demon-crats, just maybe that?s the reason there are no more US attacks. I have no idea what Gore would have done (probably nothing), but I?ll take my chances with Bush anyday.

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

Now that I disposed of Kosar are their any other challengers? I noticed that Nick Douglas, DJV, BobbyBlueChip, and StevieD all stepped down! :142lmao:

*just wanted to make sure Kosar gets a good look at this masterpiece!!!!

 

[kosar]

I got a good look at it last night. Thanks.

 

[Blackman]

Are you some Middle East expert that you can confidently say with certainty that Iraq will never be a peaceful, democratic country. I think you wish it doesn?t happen, so Bush won?t have the legacy of creating lasting peace in the Middle East, & win a Nobel prize in the process.

:142lmao: :142lmao: :142lmao: Thanks for the best laugh I've had in a while. George W. Bush -- Nobel Peace Prize winner, right along side with the Dhali Lama and Mother Theresa. I didn't realize that they gave out this award to men who play such a major roles in a war whose legitimacy is under question. Man, that's a good one, thanks again. :142lmao: :142lmao:

 

[djv]

Turf they say they spend more then us low life middle class folks. And of course us middle class folks buy say a boat. It cost 20 grand. That 5% hurts. I rich guy buys 2 $million yacht. That 5% pisses him off. The rich if true, buy top line stuff they will hate that type tax.

 

[Mr Hockey]

Ok please tell me I'm reading things. First I read about the ridiculous USC obsession but now you are touting Bush!!!!

Oh god can I send you to Mexico or something!

 

[Scott4USC]

Mr Hockey

Do you have a problem with my political posts? It looks like you do. I have explained every political issue I have posted and supported my opinion with facts.

I challenge you Mr Hockey to a debate. Tell me what issues you disagree with me and why! I bet you can't do it. I warn you, if you post something wrong, I will disect it and embarrass you just like I did with Kosar. "If" I disagree with what you say I will explain why. "If" what you say is incorrect, I will quote you and correct you.

I am sorry Mr Hockey, but saying

but now you are touting Bush!!!! Oh god can I send you to Mexico or something!

does not quite cut it. :142lmao:

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

Scooter,

Just in case you missed this post on page 3

"And Scott4USC, a poll in the last 5 months, please"