Looks like BUSH vs KERRY.....so who would you vote for as it stands now?  Please leave the other BS outside this post, just a name.

Lets send the results to vote.com.....lol

I'd vote for a blender over bush - broken or working.

Of course Kerry, I met the gent a few years ago at the Admiral Club in Washington DC ... a very intelligent and fine gent.

I read this in a wonderful letter to Newsweek editor last week. I have editted it a bit for here, name of course removed:

I am an ABBA (Anyone But Bush Again).  These are dangerous times. "When ALL Is Said and Done," any presidential candidate saying "Take a Chance on Me" has to focus on removing a president who continues to throw "Money, Money, Money" at any large campaign donor who says "Gimme, Gimme, Gimme." "The Name of the Game," is "The Winner Takes it All," and a candidate that wastes time on a "Knowing Me, Knowing You" campaign instead of sending an urgent "SOS" aimed at removing Bush risks four more years of a president who will never be "One of Us," but who will spell disaster for generations to come. "Mamma Mia!"


-- Modified on 2/11/2004 1:37:19 AM

-- Modified on 2/11/2004 1:38:14 AM

Though I like Dean the most, but he has no chance for the nomination......

Definitely Kerry, Even Sharpton over Bush is OK with me....

Kerry has voted to reduce the military and every weapons bill (even the most critical ones) since he started in DC.

Keryy will also promote gay marriage.  I know this is not the PC thing to say, but I have a real problem with this fact.  Equal rights I support, but the redefinition of marriage to condone the gay lifestyle is going too far.

Sorry if you don't agree with my stance, but you did ask.

Loarthan

PS: Don't even go there about no connection between Iraq and OBL.  There has already been several documents Iraqi documents exposed that confirm this.

PPS: The WMD have not been found, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.  In WWII, the Nazi gold horde was denied by the liberals for years.  It was discovered in 1947, two years after the surrender.  The liberals looked stupid on that one also.

PPPS: Actual job creation (not loss) has taken place.  The liberals are quoting the 2001 numbers of job losses (in a recession generated in the Clinton Administration).  Since 2001, there has been an actual growth in jobs and net loss is now around 55K.  

PPPPS: Most liberals are still pissing and moaning about the 2000 election where they lost to the procedures laid out in the Constitution.  Sorry boys & girls, you may be able to twist it for your liberal causes in most cases, but the powers section (electorial college, etc) is as plain as the nose on your face.  You lost, we won, get over it.


-- Modified on 2/11/2004 7:51:17 AM

You couldn't just leave it at BUSH / KERRY / Sharpton / Mickey Mouse. No, you had to go ahead and start throwing the word "liberal" around, like its a curse.

According to Webster's Dictionary the word "liberal", when used as an adjective in the manner of your post, means:

A) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

B) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others.

Call me a liberal, will you? I take it as a compliment!
Oh, and by the way, the only reason "you won" was by cheating.

There is a reason why, in a recent poll, over 55% of registered voters in this country DO NOT WANT BUSH REANNOINTED IN 2004.

Loarthan, do the smart thing... find a good provider you like, get laid, relax, and take another look at what they've done to this country. Look at the Big Picture, the Long Term, the Vision Thing, and you will see it.

-- Modified on 2/11/2004 9:02:13 AM

-- Modified on 2/11/2004 9:01:02 AM

"Most liberals are still pissing and moaning about the 2000 election where they lost to the procedures laid out in the Constitution.  Sorry boys & girls, you may be able to twist it for your liberal causes in most cases, but the powers section (electorial college, etc) is as plain as the nose on your face.  You lost, we won, get over"

Oh we are over it and we will this one without stealing it; we will get this one fair & square....

I said EOM = End of Message!

>Kerry -has voted to reduce the military and every weapons bill >(even the most critical ones)

By most critical you mean one any contract  Bush's supporters.
Like the Carlyle Group, (a well-connected Washington merchant bank specializing in buyouts of defense and aerospace companies)  is heavily involved in supplying arms to the Coalition forces fighting in the Iraqi war. Carlyle Group's investors include George Bush, Saudi royal family, and Bin Laden Family. Could some of this be family business? This is in the public record.

>Keryy will also promote gay marriage.
Promote? How do you know he will do this?
If you don't like it dono't marry a gay. I don't accept Bush moral authority. If you're pushing some christian morality, I don't buy that praise g*d and pass the ammunition Christianity, Turn the other cheek a couple times before you preach to others.


Its clear that the right doesn't care about morality(war mongers), they just want to beat gays over the head with the issue.

> Don't even go there about no connection between Iraq and OBL.

OBL had called for the overthrow of Iraq. This is OBL 101. There is NO CONNECTION.


> PPS: The WMD have not been found, but that doesn't mean they >don't exist.  In WWII, the Nazi gold horde was denied by the

But you put words into liberal's and believe they actually said it. You (conservatives) label people liberal if they say something you don't like. You (conservatives) say liberals hate America. I guess conservatives have some power to read (and write!) the minds to liberals or at least they think they can.

>liberals for years.  It was discovered in 1947, two years after >the surrender.  The liberals looked stupid on that one also

Yeah liberals often support nazi claims. and what does have to do with WMD. BTW Bush has admitted too. Remember Powell said they knew where the WMD where. What they do and look like. Clearly they told a boldface, fat arsed, whopping, lie.

> PPPPS: Most liberals are still pissing and moaning about the >2000 election where they lost to the procedures laid out in the >Constitution

Thank you reich propaganda minister.
Constitution is violating the voting rights act constitutional?
Is rioting outside the office where votes where being counted constitutional? What article allows a party to do that? What article allows turning away minorities falsely telling them the police wanted them for something. And I still don't buy that one of the largest retirement community voted heavily for anti-semite Pat B.

Just kidding about all that. You see I believe if we got OBL and Bush togather and sang kum ba ya everything will be Ok

but you leftists have bastardized the term.

Liberal as defined in 2003 is a socialist, and as it is concerned with the 2000 election it is also defined as whiner!  Then again, socialist and whiner are really the same thing.  "He has more than me, it's not fair", "I want government to take some of his and give it to me"!

BTW Bill, loved your poem that went:

"The starved dog at the Master's gate, predicts the ruin of the State!"

For some reason, I was thinking of this when George W. dropped his dog.

BUSH IN '04
GIULIANI IN '08

What I see ... and many of you older gents might remember ...

the Republicans of today stand for very much the same sort of things the Democrats in John F Kennedy's time stood for.  The famous quote from Ronald Regan, when asked why he left the Democrats to the Republicans was  "I didn't leave the Democratic Party - the party left me."

I suspect that we will get nuked by terrorists one day - there's just to many of them and not enough cops on the beat.

But you can't seriously suggest that the policies of Bush versus Clinton (for example) are THAT MUCH different in the eyes of the terrorists?  From our vantage point, it's easy to see a wide difference in thoughts and actions ... but to them ...  the US has been an oppressing force since before they were born, the term "Great Satan" was used long before Bush, etc.

Once a person's hatred boils to the point of strapping a bomb on a pregnant woman, I don't see how adding TWO more reasons to an existing list of 3,215 reasons gives us a reason to blame our guy for the whole thing, yanno?

Like father like son, one term and he's done!!!

The fact is, post Iraq, we now have MORE people willing to blow themselves up than we used to.  This is inherently an operation that requires economies of scale.  It might take several thousands of individuals willing to die for it, and many dozens of serious attempts to actually SUCCESSFULLY deploy a nuke against us.  It will ALSO require the support of an unchecked nuclear power who is crazy enough to do it.  The only candidates are North Korea, and some fundamentalist moslem regime (potentially Chechnya, Iran who doesn't quite have nukes yet, and Pakistan if they experience a regime change).   The way it will need to be stopped is with intense international cooperation among our security forces.  

There is no doubt that the Bush administration's policies have increased the probability of this type of terrorist attack on us in two ways:  They have significantly increased the number of suicidal terrorists who'll sign up for the job (Al Queda's brand of cannon-fodder, if you will).  And Bush's policies has also created more barriers and political resistance amongst our allies to the types of international cooperation that is needed to stop these types of attacks.  Bush would claim that his Iraqi pre-emptive operation has also LESSENED the likelihood of the cooperating Nuclear state.  However I would counter that that DIDN'T happen, because no cooperating Nuclear state could RATIONALLY be calculating the benefits based on earthly rewards ANYWAYS.  It requires a state with a leader who has a martyrdom complex, who would NOT be deterred by the fate that will befall Saddam.  It is true that pragmatic elements in Iran have backed down in the face of the Iraqi operation.  But THOSE elements were not the ones who represented the REAL threat anyways - it's the fanatic portion of the leadership that represents the threat, and THEY are probably closer to consolidating power because of the political fallout in the moslem world from Bush's Iraq campaign.

So why then did Lybia come forward with the admission of a nuclear program and a promise to dismantle the program under U.S. and British supervision?

Also, what about the recently obtained memo from an Al Queda operative out of Iraq, lamenting the fact that they are having trouble recruiting operatives in Iraq?

What about the Afghan people, who now have their own constitution and no longer have to cower under the shadow of a brutally oppressive government.

All brought about by the EVIL MORON BUSH!! IN HIS QUEST TO RULE THE WORLD!! HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHAHA!!

Or maybe the President and his NS staff are not quite the idiots you claim them to be.

RLTW

>PPPS: Actual job creation (not loss) has taken place.  The liberals are quoting the 2001 numbers of job losses (in a recession generated in the Clinton Administration).  Since 2001, there has been an actual growth in jobs and net loss is now around 55K.

Now I don't have any figures on this. The one thing I have heard Bush say is that there are more people self employed now.

Yes, that is true, there are many more self employed BANK ROBBERS!!!
Isn't that usually a tell tale sign the economy SUCKS!!!

I live in the northeast and there are still people without jobs, (which they lost during the end of 2002) that are also now off of unemployment benefits. There are also many industrial parks that are now ghost towns.

I just don't see ANY job growth and the insurance rates are going up again this year.
And did I actually hear Bush say sending jobs overseas was good for the USA?
One last thing, Bush's tax cuts are forcing local Gov'ts to RAISE taxes. Hmmmm, how does this help the economy?

JJ

-- Modified on 2/11/2004 12:39:10 PM

Before anyone is allowed to vote in this country, they should have to pass the following test before they are permitted in the booth:

[1] What day of the week is it?
[2] What year is it?
[3] Name at least 2 of the candidates running for election.
[4] What is your name?
[5] What country and state do you live in?

If they cannot answer these questions correctly, they should not be allowed to vote.

Additionally, they should be able to do the following:

- prove citizenship
- show a place of residence
- prove they are not a criminal
- have a valid id of some sort that can be verified
- show up sober

If we applied these tests, we would root out about 1/3 of the bozos that should not be voting in the first place.

Thank God most of the bozos that should vote already don't show up at the polls on voting day anyway.

E O M

This great country of ours was not started by the Bush's and Chainey's of the world, but by forward thinking liberals, no, let me correct myself, actually they were revolutionaries, which by the way are just left of liberals. These great men came up with all that liberal propaganda like The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. If the Bush's were around during the American Revolution you and I know they would have been loyalist and Tories and would have supported the King of England, because that was where the money was.  It was the liberals of this country that gave us all of socially responsible programs we should be thankful for, like the EPA, social security, SEC, FDA, and all the laws that protect us from big business, civil rights, equal rights, etc.

As far as Kerry voting to reduce the military budget, more power to him, lets shift that money to social services and education. In 2002 only 22 Americans were killed by terrorist, but 150 of us  died in bath tub accidents, I'm not proposing a Federal Bathtub Administration, but the conservatives need to stop scaring us about the "so called" terrorist threat so they could give more of our money to military contractors and security contractors, who are having a windfall under the Bush administration.  

Gay marriage, it a great idea, the more people that are committed to each other as families, the more stable our country will be.  Who ever said the Christians get to define "marriage". We have a separation of church and state (more forward thinking by liberals), marriage is a civil union first,  religious second. To get divorced you must have a judge break the marriage contract not a clergy.  If one gets remarried without a civil divorce first they are breaking the law.  

As far as the 2000 election, Bush supporters with always say Bush won fair and square and the Gore people will always say the election was stolen, neither side will ever "get over it".  We are talking about the highest office in the land, the supreme court could have sent it back to Florida for a run off if fairness had anything to do with it, but since the supreme court was bought and paid for by the republicans what else could have happened but give the presidency to DubbaU.



-- Modified on 2/12/2004 10:55:48 AM

Aside from the name, address, and date questions, which might stump him, he's having the darndest time proving that he wasn't AWOL in the latter part of 1972.  Also, impersonating a Fighter Pilot ought to be some type of crime as well.

Actually, Bush's cabinet is generally made up of some pretty intelligent people.  It's only Dumbya himself that is an idiot.  As for how the team was assembled, Dumbya's daddy and James Baker did it.  The problem is that Cheney and Ashcroft and Rumsfeld are running the show, and they are either craven and corrupt (Cheney), ruthless (Rumsfeld), or, in Ashcroft's case, convinced that he speaks directly to God.

If the economy keeps going the way it is there will be many more people that don't have a residence.

jaejae - you heard correctly. George W. did indeed say that the outsourcing phenomenon was good for the economy, and ultimately would be good for the displaced worker. There was a excellent article on this yesterday (Feb. 10, 2004) in the on-line version of the LATimes (www.latimes.com).

I guess this is George Junior's 2004 equivalent of George Senior's "read my lips".

The best editorial I've seen on the outsourcing phenomenon is by George Monbiot, and provides a very interesting historical perspective going back to the days of the old English Colonial Empire.

http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=615

One thing the Monbiot commentary emphasizes is that, if your job involves a telephone and/or computer in a developed country, you're going to be vulnerable to outsourcing.

...all conspiracy theories aside, she didn't leave Bill (and she probably had MANY causes to do so).  Any male posting on these boards should appreciate that.  

Is that Tammy Wynette I hear singing "Stand By Your Man"?

We should all be so lucky.

Anybody but the AWOL Bush

... could a little latent homosexual excitement be in the offing between you two?

Lighten up friend, no one is worth that much pain and anger.

I guess that it was not a Pilot's suit he wore on the aircraft carrier, but rather, a Tail Gunner's suit.  But if he IS gay, I would still support his right to marry.

Only it would have to be someone else.  The only bush I enjoy is the one surrounding a lady's pussy.


-- Modified on 2/11/2004 4:29:43 PM

Bush get`s more votes later in the day? You know, like when people get off work.
Just kidding liberals. I`m sure you all have jobs too. Even the government can`t give away enough of my tax dollars to pay for this hobby.

since reading is an intellectual skill, it's not something his supporters are very good at.

Bush simply must be made an example of, for his betrayal of conservatism and lust to spend like LBJ.  There's no excuse, not even 9/11, for making federal government larger and more intrusive.  And for a Republican to do to it, is particularly insulting.

Even if it means fucking the country with 4 years under a Democrat, it's worth it.  I'll vote for Kerry, for spite and revenge.  It's a message: fuck with us, and we'll fuck with you.

Some of you won't like this but Bush will win and it will not even be close. If kerry wins, One hour with your ATF on me . But when Bush wins, One hour with my ATF from each of you. Any Takers? DaCoach

Hey! I resemble that remark. I only post as an alias!

The only way it will be Bush in a runaway is if the CEO of Diebold (and their ilk) rig the new computer voting machines (see www.salon.com).

That was easy! Of course Kerry!