Not very encouraging to those who say, "anybody but Bush!"

Which is hardly the newspaper of record when it comes to reporting politics in a neutral way.  I'm not sure where I will go to find good Neutral political reporting this cycle.

I still think we will have a hot closely contested election.  However, even if the white House changes, I expect congress to remain solidly republican.

Harry.

That is precisely why there was such a low turnout.  Many don't care which Democratic candidate is nominated - he only need not be Bush.  

YouThinkYouKnow, indeed.  Even so, DoYouKnow if there any correlation between the turnout at primaries and the actual election.  Everyone I know is highly motivated to vote (yes, I mostly know ``angry democrats'').

Anyways, just my opinion (not that I know anything).

That it was reported in the WT is not all that odd, you didn't think you would hear it from Maureen Dowd did you?

"Lie, damn lies and statistics"

I think its Gladstone, Palmerstone or Disraeli

... you have never hired me as a consultant my friend.  

Did you ever hear about the consultant who was asked to make an "upbeat" presentation about a new product that was killing customers?  He said that the percent of dissatisfied customers in the latest survey was going way down.


-- Modified on 3/11/2004 2:00:21 PM

or how bout the agency that was told to come up with some fairy tales about wmd , to justify a war

The Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary both had among the highest Democratic voter turnouts ever.  The other states all were grouped in multi-state primaries which were different than in prior years, making apples to apples comparisons completely irrelevant.  In the next couple of weeks, there was absolutely horrific weather in some of the key states, And very shortly after the first few weeks, Kerry had wrapped up the nomination.  So the entire comparison is irrelevant except for what happened in Iowa and in New Hampshire, when there were single states, in hotly contested races.  And in THOSE states, turnout was exceptionally high.  

It's all irrelevant anyways, because once Kerry was the de-facto nominee, nothing mattered to the electorate except how he'll do against Bush.  And frankly, while we all have our theories, nobody will actually know until the election.  

In any case, wouldn't a Kerry / McCain ticket just be wonderful?  It would represent a unity ticket that would signal an end to the partisanship of the past 3+ years.  I don't think we'll see it, because the Republican party's machinery will threaten all types of retribution against McCain, but it would be a great thing for this country.

see my post just above in this thread for the actual breakdown of how these "hard" numbers got manipulated to tell a misleading story.

BTW, YouThinkYouKnow,  we KNOW that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to statistics, or you'd never have made such a blatantly ignorant statement as the one claiming that hard numbers can't be spun.  That is simple stupidity - Any statistician worth his salt knows exactly how to do this type of manipulation in his sleep.


-- Modified on 3/11/2004 2:55:02 PM

the "angry democrats" were under hypnosis  How you ask??  Well this is what happened, and I know this because it started to happen to me as well while I was watching the news
 
   John Kerry switched positions so many times on so many issues that it was like a Pendulum swaying from one side to another, and we all know what happens when we stare at a pendulum for too long We start getting sleepy and weary and tired and eventually "snooze" off  Such is the affect of listening  to John Kerry.  Just like a pendulum going back and forth, back and forth, until you just doze off. hehehehehe

" I wannabe John F. Kennedy" routine.

Mr. Kerry, I remember John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and you're no John Kennedy!  lol

But the good news for Kerry is that Kim Jong Il's has officially thrown his support and the support of North Korea behind the Kerry campaign.  Might be good for a buck or two!

Guys like you SHOT John F. Kennedy!  We know you knew him.... as a good recepacle for a lead slug...

Relax- Kerry is the Regular Millionaire in this fight- you've got your money on the stupid one...

Yo-Bri whassup ?  Getting your brown shirt and jack boots cleaned?  We haven't heard your Mein Kampfian rantings for a few days.

" a low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls"
 lmao.........

You know, the one who's doing his "I support Gay civil unions because my daughter is in one, but I also support a Constitutional Amendment that bans them as long as being hateful might get us some votes".  Now THAT is some kind of contortionist hypocrisy.  Fortunately for the Republicans, the guy on TOP of the ticket can't actually comprehend such nuances that the guy underneath him is spinning.

You know why?  Because it is a key ingredient in Vodka, a substance that George Dumbya Bushie got intimately familiar with in massively abusive quantities, during his early days while AWOL from the Alabama National Guard.


-- Modified on 3/11/2004 4:02:17 PM

Sully, even more moronic than your usual drivel.  Of course that kind of inane comment most likely pass for comedy in your world.  And to think, such cleverness from someone who can't figure out how to email.

"Kerry the Regular Millionaire"?  What's flipper stand for today, (wait a minute, better give you a time, a whole day is fairly lengthy life span for a Kerry opinion) at 4:00 PM PST  on March 11, 2004?

Sully, you've got me wrong on Kerry, I couldn't of hand picked a easier opponent, well maybe Dean.  I just hope the chump doesn't completely self destruct before your convention.   But we have little hope of that.

BTW, for what it is worth, if you said something like that to me in person, I would send you to the ER.



-- Modified on 3/11/2004 4:08:55 PM

Find a SINGLE example of a Kerry "flip-flop" where there is NOT an actual MEANINGFUL difference between the wording of the position which Kerry supported at one time, and the one which he subsequently opposed (or vice versa).

I am quite certain that you will find that EVERY one of the supposed Kerry flip-flops that you right wingers keep talking about was ACTUALLY a nuanced difference in the particular items that were actually up for discussion.  But, because most Republicans, and certainly most Bush supporters, have limited comprehension, they cannot grasp this minor detail.  So let's see what you can find.  It will be tricky, because you will need to be able to read, and understand fine details, a task that I don't think you're capable of.

dude-  

You ARE a proto-fascist-  something you proudly claim at every turn

Now when I give you props you get all bent out?

Figure out your politics and then pop- off

You're the kind of guy who would be proud to shoot that pinko president-ain't you?

yet, my all time favorite is still "The French don't have a word for entrepreneur".

You will say that you will kick the ass of someone who you have never met or seen.  Very smart.  I hope you do not talk like that often because it is you who may end up in the ER.

Oh dammit, I am defending Sully, time for me to get a life

Speaking of stupid things said by presidents, how about this one. "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski."
How many of us have mis-spoke at some point or points in our lives or for that matter, just flat out said something really dumb? I know I have. Hell, I even went so far as to write some of it here.
Now, how many of us can say we had the stones to tell an out and out lie to the whole world while our semen was still drying on the dress.

What did John F. Kennedy do as president?

Here are a couple of things:

Immediately lowered taxes.

Stood up to the evil in the world, i.e. U.S.S.R.

Moved towards the Civil Rights Acts of 1965 -1966 at the disdain of most of the Democratic Party!  Remember Sully your party controlled the states that had Poll Taxes, gave birth to the Ku Klux Klan, actually, one of the slime buckets you probably look up to, Senator Byrd was a Grand Dragon himself!  If it wasn't for the support of the Republican Party in Kennedy's era, the Civil Rights Movement would have never gotten off the ground.

I would never call Kennedy a "pinko", you're another matter.

Kennedy was no liberal, Kennedy was a leader!

Ted Kennedy is an embarrassment to his memory as are you.

The source may be the problem. You need to understand the WT is a Moonie run/owned tabloid.

Also the primaries aren't even finished so the numbers aren't totalled yet.

TET

The implication is that Sully would not make a comment like that directed at me in my presence!  If he indeed would, then I guess you could say that I had met him and would indeed send him to the ER!  If it would make you happier, I would do it without even touching is ass!

near the end of the article:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096540

and that list doesn't include the Patriot Act (which he voted for, and now said he's againt it), No Child Left Behind Act, gay marriage, etc etc.

Kerry supports both sides of every issue, lol.


-- Modified on 3/11/2004 5:24:37 PM

-- Modified on 3/12/2004 9:05:36 AM

Get over yourself before you end up in a situation that will give you nightmares and the shakes for the rest of your life.  There are things in life that even a testosterone spewing rattlehead will fear when faced with them.

wow-  do you ever read my posts?  Well face it we know you don't read-.

Back when the Republicans used to be the progressive party and actually cared about minorities, the rule of law, and were the party most concerned with eliminating deficits, I used to be a GOP er myself.

Then the pary seemed to go nuts. Went over to listening to wacko christian groups and became the party of worker exploitation and anti-abortionism.  Let chauvinists get access to foreign policy debates.  Basically turned into a proto-fascist party instead a conservative one.  I crossed the aisle, to join the true conservatives now, the democrats.

You seem to have stayed.  I guess those Bircher meetings captured your imagination and you loved the  challenge of trashing the world and gutting civil and human rights at home and abroad.  More power to you.  You may even claim another victory in the fall- and finally get your wish- an America so insular and contemptous of the world that we reap what we are sowing.  

But since your first reaction to any resistance to your  vituperative nature seems to be violent- I guess you will have beaten up a lot of people by then....

Just a word from a lover not a fighter- can you try to leave the ladies alone?  I'll be VERBALLY sparring with all comers, while you are smackin' folks around and "earning their respect" with your fists.  I will have to trust that you are not smackin' the girls because they "don't listen".

The move to long pants seems to have been premature for you, my friend, try to not to move up to weapons, too.   You're just so damn impressive...

...perhaps you would like to engage his services.

So when you have trouble presenting a reasoned well thought out position or argument you resort to some sort of high school locker room "macho verbal posturing"?

Either and all parties that resort to this sort of nonsense
that has been exchanged here would look right at home standing next to Bertuzzi.

Todd Bertuzzi "role model", here's your hero:

http://www.canada.com/sports/hockey/story.html?id=361EE5E4-52C3-4F09-B549-F661F1C789A1

-- Modified on 3/12/2004 5:25:26 PM

-- Modified on 3/12/2004 5:26:26 PM

are you sure your not pro Gay marriage.  Or, are you like most of your kind - you just want to partake without giving back (being a receiver and all).

Oh no !!! I guess your going to kick my ass now.

Ironic isn't it, that Maureen is a perfect illustration of DOWDY?

when it comes to politics and Statistics only a hand full of real statisticians are involved, if that.  Most of what they do is just accounting and I can imagine it's the campaign people racking their simple brains to put on the spin.  

On the other hand, when it comes to the statistical consultants trying to determine the best strategy, i.e., which populations to target etc. that is interesting (in this case the statistical methods are quite sophisticated I'm sure).

I tell you one thing I'm sure Bush was damn ecstatic about 911 - He couldn't wait for an excuse to go to war (of course, he wasn't such a war monger when he was in the National Guard).  To me that is a much bigger issue than Clinton screwing some girl.

John Kerry is the living reincarnation of Deputy Dawg for those of you that can remember the cartoon.  

However, the complaints about him "switching positions" are sort of silly.  He has been in the legislature for years.  He has thousands of votes on record:  he will have things that look like opposing positions and flip-flops if he is being effective as a senator.  That is the way the business works.  The only way a person in his position can avoid it is to vote always from set of simple well defined political principles.  This is something that some conservative senators do well.  Often, it makes them ineffective in their job.  

Mr Bush may succeed in defining Mr Kerry as "flip-floping" -- it's been done before to people that come out of the house or senate (a good example was Richard Gebheart in NH when he ran against Clinton).  It is how goveernors and preisdents run against people that come out of either house.  I, for one, think there are more substantive issues that need to be considered.

Leadership capacity -- I think there are very hard question that are undecided.  Kerry is smarter and more sophisicated than Bush: but neither thing makes him a better leader.  Bush often looks like a person who is often disengaged from significant decisions.

Honesty & Morality -- Bush has not been called to task for a bunch of things (9/11 failure, using intellegence politically, outing CIA agents, Cheney meetings, ...).  On the other side, Kerry has a record of careerism in his resume.  There are real questions about whether he can switch to advocating for the people rather than himself.  I will watch closely to see if candidates avoid wedge issues and act like people that have to govern rather than activists that have an agenda.

The Economy -- A lot of federal policies look like a real giveaway.   The stimulation effect of these policies will be long term (because that is how they work).  The Dems moan, and forget that JFK did exactly the same thing (extensive tax relief).  The questions should revolve around whether these things were smart, effective, and done at too high a social cost.

My $0.02.  Harry  

The difference is that whether Bill Clinton got some intern on the side to give him a consensual BJ is not anyone's damn business but his, Monica's and Hillary's.  OTOH, we should ALL care when our leaders are getting our brave young people killed for false pretenses.

In most cases, Kerry's views changed because the world changed.

The Patriot Act, for example, might have been justifiable as a near-term emergency measure.  That is a far cry from being justifiable as the long term law of the land.  So it is a perfectly plausible position to support the Patriot act in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but to oppose it's renewal as ongoing policy.  Not a flip flop, a rational and justifiable view.

Similarly, Affirmative Action, was CLEARLY justifiable in the days of Klan rides through the South, and de-facto segregation of the 1960s.  As our nation moves closer to a scenario where institutionalized segregation is no longer an issue, Affirmative Action becomes less and less justifiable, and eventually becomes detrimental.  Kerry is moving along that logical continuum.  In fact, this is one area that I would HOPE that any thoughtful citizen would acknowledge that this is an appropriate continuum to travel on, the only REASONABLE disagreement being over WHEN the society reaches the point where the remedy becomes more harmful than the status condition it is meant to cure.  

Similarly, ANYTHING related to Terrorism, is CLEARLY at a different level of urgency in the post 9/11 world than it was before.  

I could go on for all 9 of those examples, but the fact is, in ANY real world issue, someone who is willing to take measured positions, and adapt them to changing realities is demonstrating THOUGHTFULNESS, FLEXIBILITY, AND INTEGRITY.   If someone is rigid and an ideologue in the face of a changing world (say, someone like Ashcroft or Bush) I sure as heck don't want them in an important decision-making role like President.  Being a rigid ideologue is a fundamental disqualifying lack of competence for the position.  Thank Goodness Kerry does not suffer from this.

it's ok to admit, YOU WERE WRONG

your own words, you wanted people to

"Find a SINGLE example of a Kerry "flip-flop" where there is NOT an actual MEANINGFUL difference between the wording of the position which Kerry supported at one time, and the one which he subsequently opposed (or vice versa)."

I gave you a long list, and your response is

"In most cases, Kerry's views changed because the world changed."

so you acknowledged that Kerry flip-floped, lol.

And, I might add that probably the biggest flaw that you individually have, is an unwillingness to consider the possibility thay you might be wrong.  One should always remain open to a thoughtful and truthful argument that might persuade them that they might be wrong about something.

Those are modified positions in the face of a change in circumstances, NOT flip flops.  Anyone who would NOT change positions in any case under such circumstances would be, by definition, incompetent to hold the position of President.


A GENUINE flip flop might be when George W Bush proposes the no child left behind program, but then acts to insure that it is under-funded and ineffective.  That's simply a craven example of political hypocrisy.  In Kerry's case, his initial support changed to opposition only IN THE FACE of Bush's own sabotaging of the program.  Hence, Kerry's position change is justified, while Bush's is actually one he would not even publically acknowledge, yet is FAR more detrimental.

Another example of a Flip Flop was when George Bush suddenly went from an alcohol-abusing, partying drug addict to a pious tea-totaller without there being any fundamental change in the world around him which would warrant that change.  The ONLY change was actually some recognition on BUSH's part that his behavior was destructive.  In THAT case, the switch is merely a acknowledgement by Bush of a basic flaw in Bush's character, that had led to the initial addictive behavior.  


-- Modified on 3/12/2004 1:46:33 PM

One man's measured change of opinion due to more informed cogitation is another man's flip flop.  Usually right around election time.

Both parties use the term for any change of opinion

You're killing me!  If you keep it up I don't know whether I'll wet my pants or have to come to the conclusion that you both really think like this, which would be very sad.  (Note:  "think" is loosely used here)

Kerry's record

FOR

Gulf War  (Senate Vote)
Iraqi War (Senate Vote)
Patriot Act  (Senate Vote)
Viet Nam War
Death Penalty
Gay Marriage

Then the wind changed - well sometimes the wind was coming out of his mouth.

AGAINST

Gulf War
Iraqi War
Patriot Act
Viet Nam War
Death Penalty
Gay Marriage

When will the wind change again?  And what will you socialists do when he flip's again?  Obviously Kerry has to flip flop in order to fool some people into voting for him.  If he really showed his true beliefs, he wouldn't get 20%.  He was a terrible choice for the Dem's, most liberal voting record in the Senate, when he attends which has been rarely in the last two years.  Here are the facts: in 2003 Sen. John Kerry missed 292 votes, or 64 percent of the votes in the Senate. This year he has missed ALL of the first 22 Senate votes... until he rushed back to Washington at the behest of the gun control crowd to cast votes for a series of anti-Second
Amendment measures, all the while talking about his love for hunting!  lol  Wait until he speaks before PETA, he'll be flopping like a dying fish.

sdstud, you are a pathetic leftist apologist!  I could do a better job defending your side.  If Kerry shit on your head you would have a comment about Bush's DUI, pretty silly really.

Sully, I see a nerd sitting at his keyboard CONSTANTLY sending out what you consider witty and self satisfying responses to serious discussions.  Never responding to the meat of the issue,  You think you do and it keeps me entertained, but you really have nothing to offer.  You're becoming a bore.

"I tell you one thing I'm sure Bush was damn ecstatic about 911"

A stupid remark like that pretty much prevents me or any other rational person from showing any respect for your opinion. What a hateful person you are.

It must just be just scaring the hell out of you guys!

Now consider that Bush can run 10 TV ads to every one Kerry gets out and its looking pretty damn grim.

And all the money was raised since the McCain/Feingold Bill was passed.  Let me explain that to sdstud, that means that it was raised mainly by a whole lot of little donations from regular people.  Average donation is under $100.00!  

And to top if off, Sean Hannity's book "Deliver Us From Evil" is the best selling book in the land.  Michael Savage's "The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military " is up there too!  

Have to admit that Al Franken's book is up there too, but the difference is that conservatives have and are buying Franken's book as I have, and I'd bet my left testicle that none of you socialist have ever read anything from the other worldview!

I just thought that I'd mention that my entire educational background is from folks with "the other world view".  My Graduate degree is in Economics from the University of Chicago, studying under, among others, the late, great nobel laureate George Stigler (Who, BTW, was Ronald Reagan's favorite economist).  This is among the most conservative schools in the world, and many of the leading figures in the Reagan administration and both Bush administrations have longstanding ties to this academic institution.

I am ALWAYS seeking enlightenment from thoughtful commentators across the political spectrum, and certainly, George Will and William F. Buckley are among the individuals who's works I have read comprehensively and with great interest.  Note, this may even occassionally include idiots like Anne Coulter and Michael Savage, who's hateful spewings are among the more disgusting contributions to the political dialoge.  Coulter in particular appears to be proof that some of Josef Mengele's experiments with eugenics to create the perfect Aryan Nazi woman seem to have borne some fruit.  I even often listen to Rush Limbaugh's show on the radio, a) because he's entertaining, and b) because it is very important to know where the thought processes of one's enemies is leading, so one can be prepared with intelligent countermeasures.

What I find MOST enlightening, however, is how Bush is starting to garner strong opposition from some of the most thoughtful CONSERVATIVE thinkers in this nation, who recognize that his entire irrational fiscal policy is an absolute disaster for the future of our country.   See the link to a recent article in The American Conservative magazine, which discusses the catastrophy that is Bush's economic policy.  And the following month's March 16th issue also has a nice article about Bush's completely stupid foreign policy, as manifest in Iraq and elsewhere.

Now, we'll need to make arrangements so that I can claim your left testicle.  It's quite clear that you just lost it.


-- Modified on 3/13/2004 10:52:16 AM

It's also equally obvious that no actual thinking has gone into YOUR posts.  Of course, when one has a brain, and uses it, ones positions change as the world changes.  That's GOOD, and it's a NECESSARY quality in a leader.  Alas, it is also a capacity that the current president is totally lacking.  He is consistent to the point of being an imbecile.  His foreign policy is the best recruiting tool that Al Queda could ever hope for, and his domestic policies are the best thing that ever happened to China and India's economies.

BTW, I am hardly a socialist, and most assuredly a capitalist.  I am in fact one of the folks who would be hit hardest personally by Kerry's upping the income taxes on people who earn over $200K annually.  I estimate that my own personal federal income taxes will go up by something between $10K and $15K per year under Kerry compared to Bush.  And that doesn't even include how much more I'd be paying with the greater prosperity that Kerry would be sure to bring vs. the stagnation we've seen under Bush. But I am equally certain that Kerry's policies are right for the nation, where Bush's policies are an outright disaster both for economic well-being and for national security.  Because of this, I am VERY willing to put my money where my mouth is on the subject of getting Bush out of office.  I would be THRILLED to pay an extra $10K to $15K per year for the privilege of getting Bush the hell out of office.

Oh, and BTW, here's a link to an article in The American Conservative (hardly a socialist publication) magazine's current issue, describing the fiasco that has been Bush's Iraq policy.

-- Modified on 3/13/2004 10:15:56 AM

The actual evidence seems to indicate that Bush was personally scared shitless on 9/11.  Initially, for his own personal safety as he was being hauled from bunker to bunker by the secret service, and later, because he knew that his mettle was going to be tested in a manner where, for the first time ever, Daddy couldn't make a phone call to make things right.

And the irony is, Bush's post 9/11 response was actually the highlight of his Presidency, 1st in uniting the country, and later in leading an initially highly successful campaign against the Taliban and Al Queda.

The problem, of course is that this year or so of strong and solid Presidential leadership was followed, after the 2002 elections, with some of the most monumentally divisive and economically destructive policies in American history, both domestically and with his misadventure in Iraq, which continues to get brave Americans killed (564 dead and still counting) on false pretenses so Bush and his oil cronies can pillage the nation instead of letting Saddam do it.

Kerry has demonstrated that his decisions/opinions/votes are based on the tide of public opinion, hardly a character trait most of us would like in a President.  Public opinion is based mainly on reported news, news I would add that is tainted by the leftist opinions of network anchors.  Swinging to and fro is not a trait of a leader.  It's a trait of a marketing man.

If you are a capitalist, you would know and be reaping the profits from our rebounding economy.  How in any way you consider that tax increases will improve our economy is contrary to anything but socialist thought.  That you embrace increased taxes is contrary to capitalist thinking.  Furthermore, IF you are in the $200K income level, Kerry's tax ideas would be 15% increases over the top tax level presently.  Basic math gives us a figure of a $30,000 tax increase to those making $200K per year.  Never in economic history has a country taxed themselves into prosperity.  Not once!  I'll be sending as much as I legally can to the Bush reelection campaign to defeat Kerry and a few socialist senators instead, thank you.

One of the more interesting concepts of Conservative thinking is our ability to express our own ideas.  That in the conservative movement their are varied ideas and opinions gives testament to our individual thinking.  I am not too happy with Bush's increase of Medicare or funding of the National Endowment for the Arts, but I am very pleased with his strong leadership in National Defense.  Kerry's problem with Bush is that he asked for the Senate's approval to go to war in Iraq!  He clearly stated that was his purpose!  Kerry voted for it, as did Hillary and Edwards and a great majority of Democrats!  When Bush lead us into a successful regime change in Iraq, they changed their minds.  It seems that they were not all that used to a man who kept his word.

On the contrary, it would seem that ALL democrats march in lock step unity in there goose steps towards more socialism.  Unallowed or too beholding to their special interests to or just too cowardly to express decent.  That would be the leadership, not the average democrat on the street.  The majority in the Senate and House in the hands of the Republicans gives evidence that the rank and file Democrats do not agree with this socialistic agenda.  The choice of THE MOST LIBERAL Senator in our nation as what the press is now calling "The Presumptive" Democratic Candidate for President is moronic.  But beleive me, I really like it.  It proves that the leadership in the Democratic Party is extremely out of touch with their majority base and recent history.  It was tried before in 1972 with McGovern and resulted in a dismal failure.  Bill Clinton even had to run to the center right in order to be elected, now you "Einsteins" run this leftist, anti-military, flip-flopping JFK wantabee!

Brilliant!  And thank you again for your inspired, yet imbecilic defense of it all!

-- Modified on 3/13/2004 11:29:21 AM

What Kerry is proposing is a 5% increase on the MARGINAL tax rate, back to 40% and actually, about 5% OVERALL increase on my taxible income.  Right now, I pay a marginal tax rate of 35%, and an aggregate tax rate of nearly 28% (it's actually 27% prior to AMT, and then I got hit for another $3800 of AMT, which I wouldn't see under higher marginal rates.  Under Kerry, my marginal rate would increase to 40%, and the overall aggregate would be around 32%.

Which, at $300K taxible income after deductions, would come to $12-15K increase in my personal taxes.  

BTW, as for the economic ramifications, you, like ALL the other Bush apologists, conveniently ignore the fact that Bush is already spending like a madman.  You would actually be correct, if in fact Kerry proposed drastic SPENDING increases.  He doesn't.  He simply plans to re-direct spending away from things like pre-emptive war, and toward underfunded social programs, and to PAY the bills Bush has left us with.  The fact that Bush hasn't taxed you for it YET, doesn't mean that the economy will not somehow need to fund the spending that has ALREADY been committed.  Let me ask you this:  If you spend $10K on your credit cards, but don't pay the bill, will your personal finances actually be MORE robust, or LESS robust, than when you DO pay the bill?  The answer is MORE sound once the bill is paid.  This is the same thing our nation faces on a far grander scale.  Bush has already spent the money.  Kerry is simply offerring a reasonable approach to actually paying the bill.  Whether Kerry increases taxes or not, the Deficit WILL be paid down.  Without a tax increase, this will just be through rampant inflation such as we saw under Carter in the 1970s.  Yes, Bush's fiscal policy is taking us along the same path as Carter in the '70s.

And, BTW, as a Capitalist, I AM reaping profits, but not nearly the profits I reaped under the last 4 years of the Clinton administration.  There is nothing Socialist about suggesting that the wealthy pay their fair share of the burden that allows us to live well in this nation.  

As for Iraq, Bush's word was that he would explore all of the international initiatives needed to get Saddam to disarm before going to war.  That's what Kerry, and Hillary and Edwards voted for.  The fact was, Saddam HAD disarmed, and had Bush allowed the U.N. inspections to be completed, that would have been established, and the need for the war had already been obviated. It was Bush who misrepresented the threat that Iraq posed to us, and which influenced public opinion and led to the support for invading Iraq at that time.  You can keep saying that Kerry voted FOR war all you want, it doesn't make it so.  He voted to AUTHORIZE the PRESIDENT to go to war in the event that international diplomatic initiatives failed to disarm Saddam.  But BUSH didn't allow those initiatives to play out, and in fact demonstrate that Saddam had ALREADY disarmed.  What you are doing here is the same type of misrepresentation that Bush did.  I don't know whether YOU are actually lying, or simply ignorant, but it is clearly one of the two.  As for Bush, the evidence is preponderant that he was lying outright, on the issue of an IMMINENT NUCLEAR threat.

And I agree and extoll the Conservative idea about expressing my views.  You can call me a socialist all you want.  It's just another dillusion for you, just like the one that Bush is making this nation prosperous.  But the FACT is, I am a centrist, with Libertarian views and a graduate degree in economics from the quite CONSERVATIVE University of Chicago.  I supported McCain in the last election, and would support ANYONE OTHER THAN BUSH in this election, based strictly on the record of non-achievement and social divisiveness that Bush has delivered in the past 2 years.  There is a reason that the Democrats are in lock-step this year as NEVER before.  And that reason is a recognition that Bush is a disaster for this nation, and needs to go at ANY cost.

We are still waiting for your response to how you plan on losing the left testicle, BTW.

-- Modified on 3/13/2004 12:32:24 PM

Some things have changed and I have rescinded my bet.  I'm quite sure sdstud, that you will accept my decision with open arms!  If it makes you feel any better you can say that I flip flopped on my position.

When Reagan reduced taxes and increased spending in his first term, we heard the same claims from the left!  But the results were that after lowering taxes and even with the increased spending that our federal tax revenue doubled!  It was Reagan's tax policy that ended the deplorable economy of the Carter Administration and led us into 18 years of record economic growth in this country (and record tax revenue).  Your imaginary inflation and correlation to Carter is poppycock, history does not bare them out nor does common sense.  

As a student of economics you should know that only three areas are available to a President to stimulate the economy.  1)  Increase Federal Spending.  2)  Decrease Federal Taxes and.   3)  Attempt to control the interest rates.  After that, business is the only source of economic revitalization.  Bush has done all he can do, American business has to carry the ball.  Considering all the burden that the left has put on business, especially here in California, how you would want to see a Democrat in the White House belies your statement of centric and libertarian thought.  These burdens have chased almost all major manufacturing businesses out of California.  We no longer make cars, tires, and soon Boeing will end aerospace manufacturing completely in California.  Other states have followed in California's foot step and now we see the flight of jobs offshore.  Not to mention that the American public buys the cheaper products over American made products because of price.  But yet you want to increase the tax burden on the very people who provide the jobs in this Country!

How about taxing the existing rich like John Kerry and his wife with an estimated worth of 752 million?  No people like Kerry want to keep people like you and me from attaining that level of wealth by taxing those people who really drive the economy.  The percentage of American's currently employed by small business is huge and growing annually as the larger companies export their labor.  How far does it have to go before it chokes us to ruin.  

Social programs have not worked.  We have had for example "Head Start" now for decades and yet our public schools are performing way below the levels of the pre-Head Start era.  They are a shame to buy votes and to repress people.  The increase in Republican voter registration in the Black Community is evidence that they are starting to wake up.

As far as the vote in the Senate for war is concerned, how many UN Resolutions were there?  How many YEARS had passed since Saddam agreed to dispose of his WMD?  Not that it matters that he never provided proof of their disposal, and that they are most certainly hidden somewhere either in Iraq or Syria, etc., but your claim that he had indeed disarmed is just folly, foolishness and without a modicum of evidence!  Ultimately Saddam thought that the Senate and Congressional democrats would shelter him from American involvement.  He was giving the world community and the US the finger!  Wrong move with a strong leader in a post 9/11 world.

The UN is nothing but a bunch of mental masturbators, lacking the integrity of their words living off of America's dime!  Other than the occasional distribution of food and medicine to blighted areas of the planet it is a useless organization.

In contrast, under Kerry's leadership, he would attempt to sell us out to the United Nations.  Here is a excerpt from an article he wrote to the Harvard Crimson in 1970:

"I am a bold, internationalist... a progressive... I would almost eliminate CIA activity... I'd like to see our troops dispersed around the world only at the directive of the United Nations..."

John Forbes Kerry
Written by Kerry in the Harvard Crimson (1970)

I want a President who would truly uphold his oath to office to defend THIS Nation, not kowtow to the whims of third world despots!  Kerry would subject America to UN rule!  This may be the only issue that he has not flip flopped on!

I am confident that the majority of American's want a President who is first and foremost Pro-America!  Kerry is not, and has never been!

As far as his tax policy is concerned, what makes you think, with his history of voting for EVERY tax increase that he would keep his word on this issue?  After all, in your own words, things change and he has had to adapt!  If he were elected he would do the same thing that Bill Clinton did within a month of taking office...tax your ass off!

My only concern is that the Dems will bounce him before the convention.

Interestingly, I received my B.S. in Economics at a much more liberal institution, the University of California at Irvine.

-- Modified on 3/13/2004 3:32:33 PM

I do believe Bush was personally scared shitless - cause above all he's more concerned with himself.

Now, I have such an utter lack of respect for this guy because I believe it is his and his cronies greed that brings about all this hatred.

Of course, there will always be terrorism (at least in our lifetimes) but administrations such as ours today espouses hatred.  

Also, it is not Bush that united the country but our basic humanity - I hardly feel he is so capable.  

Yes, Amp I am hateful - I hate people that try to impose their beliefs and lifestyle on others.

Now, regarding stupid remarks.  Do you really think all presidents don't lie.  In particular, you've seemed to forget Iran-Contra (on the other hand I guess he really doesn't ``recall'').

The question is not whether presidents lie - but what they lie about.