Bush for 2004! (yeah, right)

[Max Powers]

I agree. If you are not an American citizen, you should get absolutely nothing. These weird tree hugger and Latino groups get in the way as well. They put these little kids in front of the camera and whine about how their illegal alien parents should get a drivers license so that they can drive to the hospital. Lame, take a bus. They also put these water stations through out the Southwest. It makes it easier for them to cross the border illegally. I agree with the land owners down there, they should be able to defend their property against these trespassers.

Bill O'Reilly talked about this a few times. He suggests putting the National Guard on both the Canadian and Mexican border. It's a good idea, after all, that's what the National Guard is for, defending the land against invaders.

I don't even think I need to say anything in response to this.

All I can say is this: Try stepping out of your own shoes and look at this from the eyes of somebody who isn't a die-hard, ultraconservative nazi.

 

[Carl.]

I like so much the rhetorics that republicans supporters have about who would a terrorist vote for... funny.

Newsflash: Insane Terrorists do want the head of Kerry, as bush's, as yours .

- Wait - we're interrupting this program for another stunning breakthrough story: Terrorists do not mind dying for their cause - for them it's a way to rally more and more members to their cause everywhere in the world. Insane you say? Yes. But so far it looks like it is working, as sad as it is.

Could you honestly tell me that you don't think anti-americanism is currently at a peak in the western world and the Middle east, and name me an action that Bush has taken which will have any positive results trying to keeping it from spreading... no try to find some actions that did exactly the opposite - that's a bit easier to do.

So fat the best answer I had would be that the effect of a stable and prosper democraty in Iraq will become an example for others in the Middle-East... But in my eyes, the plan looks as sketchy as Bush's answer about sovereignty in this video... It's hard to believe he knows what he's talking about.

I'm not a fan of Kerry, but IMO it's quite hard to mess things up worst than Bush did in the last years.

 

[Danoff]

87 Percentage of American families in April 2004 who say they have felt no benefit from Bush's tax cuts.

"Felt no benefit".... except that they don't realize that the benefit is in the overall health of the economy and the fact that the unemployment numbers are down.

39 Percentage of tax cuts that will go to the top 1 per cent of American families when fully phased in.

And guess who pays 80% of the taxes... that's right, the rich! Give an across the board tax break (same percentage to everyone) and the rich will get most of it becuase they pay most of it. The fact of the matter is that the Bush tax break helped turn around the Clinton recession. If the rich didn't get most of the a tax break, that would be redistribution of wealth. Ask Russia how well that works.

49 Percentage of Americans on April 2004 who found that their taxes had actually gone up since Bush took office.

That can only mean they have increased their income.

 

[Kent]

So you all want to act like grown ups?

Good, lets have some fun... But in the right place.

Regardless of the comedic value to any of the linked material, it is politically driven (and agenda driven if you ask me).

With this being directly related to politics,

Let me be the first to welcome you all to the Opinions Forum.

That's where this thread belongs and that's where it is going.

Thread moved:
Final notes:

Personal attacks are a sign of weakness and discredit the argument of any one using them.
Weak!!!!!!

 

[Solid Fro]

wow, the way you're saying that makes it sound as though all terrorists come straight from the Middle East. The reason I say that is because so far, only that part of the world has been targeted by Bush.

The extremists who flew 767s through buildings came from the Middle East. Al Qaeda is from the Middle East. Saddam supported terrorists from the Middle East.

Can you explain to me what has been done about all the folks in the USA that have weapons that are illegal to own and the folks that have explosive caches in their garages? How about the potential terrorists out here - ie, the next OK City bomber, the next atlanta olympic games bomber, etc?

That's Homeland Security's job.

What exactly happened about North Korea?

I don't think you go charging into a country with troops who has nuclear weapons and are not afraid to use them. Also, countries like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea do not want a nuclear in their backyard.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

Unemployment is at its highest rate in my lifetime, and probably most of yours. What they keep referring to is "Job Growth", or the number of new jobs created. However, what "job growth" does NOT take into account, is the number of jobs LOST! Not only does the number of jobs outnumber those created by a large margin, but those gained, on average, are substantially lower-paying than those gained!

Now, as for the economy. Contrary to what FOX NEWS tells you, the economy is plumetting. They base their calculations on the stock market, but, in truth, the stock market is rasing because prices are plumetting. The real measure of the US economy is comparison to the rest of the world. Compare the dollar to the Euro. About four years ago, when it was introduced, it was worth approximately 80 cents US. When I was in Italy last may, rates were approximately 1.25USD for every euro. That's an decrease in the value of the US dollar by .36%. Other international currencies have showed similar trends. If the US economy has NOT sunken, than that means the rest of the world has had an economic boost that the US has not. Either way, the professed boost in the US economy in nonexistant.

 

[emad]

The real measure of the US economy is comparison to the rest of the world. Compare the dollar to the Euro. About four years ago, when it was introduced, it was worth approximately 80 cents US. When I was in Italy last may, rates were approximately 1.25USD for every euro. That's an decrease in the value of the US dollar by .36%. Other international currencies have showed similar trends. If the US economy has NOT sunken, than that means the rest of the world has had an economic boost that the US has not. Either way, the professed boost in the US economy in nonexistant.

just over a year ago, the exchange rate for the canadian dollar was something like 1.65. It has since dropped to 1.3. By the end of 2005, the canadian dollar will be almost as strong as the USD...

 

[Danoff]

Unemployment is at its highest rate in my lifetime, and probably most of yours

Apparently you're assuming we were all born in March of this year.

http://www.1loansusa.com/charts/uneploymentrate.html

The real measure of the US economy is comparison to the rest of the world. Compare the dollar to the Euro.

Total and complete BS. You're not an economist, don't pretend to be one.

 

[TwinTurboJay]

if I was american I would be voting for Nader !

 

[Danoff]

if I was american I would be voting for Nader !

Nader's economic policies are exactly the opposite of what basic economic textbooks and history textbooks would tell you is the best thing to do. I'm glad you're not American.

 

[TwinTurboJay]

Me Too ! HA

 

[Danoff]

Me Too ! HA

Care to comment on my econimic argument? Or do you just want to conceed that you'd vote for the guy who would run the economy into the toilet?

Or did you just expect to interject a comment that seemed trendy and cool and not expect to actually have to think?

 

[Anderton Prime]

Me Too ! HA

Oh, SNAP!

 

[TwinTurboJay]

Trendy, cool....that would not really define Nader now would it ?

As for the economic state in the US, to be honest all I know is from news on the $$$ that have been spent on the war, and homeland security ( my company is one of those who have benefited from this upturn, selling hardware and adhesives to military manufacturers ) And of course, @ quite the markup ( it seems on average, US military purchasing agents are quite lazy ) So in short, I would have to vote for Bush he has been good for my commision cheques

So I retract my statement regarding Nader, I don;t know enough about the policies except for what has been fed to me by the media, and could not make an educated vote.

 

[Danoff]

I don;t know enough about the policies except for what has been fed to me by the media

I can recommend some good books. Try picking up a copy of "Free to Choose".

Trendy, cool....that would not really define Nader now would it ?

That's exactly how I would define a vote for the green party.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

Apparently you're assuming we were all born in March of this year.

http://www.1loansusa.com/charts/uneploymentrate.html

I meant during Bush's presidency, not at this very moment. If that chart is correct (which I'm somewhat doubtful of), I'm wrong, unemployment is only at its highest level since the last republican president was in office.

Total and complete BS. You're not an economist, don't pretend to be one.

How do you measure the economy, then? The stock market is not a legitimate source, as the values of the stocks can easily be controlled by the corporations, 99% of whom are bush supporters. If our economy isn't falling, why is it that every nation that doesn't depend on the US economy has rising currency values and rising economies, and every country that's tied into the US economy, for business and trade (Canada, Japan, for example) is plumetting?

 

[TwinTurboJay]

To be Honest though danoff, I've enough on my plate with Canadian politics and how it effects me without borrowing more political problems trying to educate myself on a larger, more aggressive nations candidates ( although neighbouring ) indirectly effects me.

 

[Danoff]

To be Honest though danoff, I've enough on my plate with Canadian politics and how it effects me without borrowing more political problems trying to educate myself on a larger, more aggressive nations candidates ( although neighbouring ) indirectly effects me.

Basic economic principles apply to your country (and its policies) just the same.

 

[Danoff]

I'm wrong, unemployment is only at its highest level since the last republican president was in office.

How about since the stock market bubble burst? Or since September 11th 2001? Or how about looking at it as a reaction to the recession that was starting up as clinton was finishing up?

 

[milefile]

But then it wouldn't be all George W. Bush's fault. What fun is there in that?

 

[Silverzone]

I don't like either of the people running. I am glad I can't vote.

 

[1X83Z]

I guess this video isn't very nice to the President.

I'll be voting for Bush, because I don't want another 767 crashing through a building.

Another 767 crashing through a building? You live in central California; your town has less than 64,000 people. Rudy Giuliani might not need Michael Moore to tell him about 9/11; I don't need YOU to tell me about 767s crashing through buildings. I'm three blocks from Wall Street - if it hits, it hits me. You can watch on the TV. It won't change the fact that I'm voting for the Democrat. Not because I like him, but because I can't stand Bush supporters - mainly yourself, in fact. And while you live in a state that's going to the Democrats, I'm registering in Michigan next month. That's a swing state, ladies and gentlemen!

Unemployment is at its highest rate in my lifetime, and probably most of yours. What they keep referring to is "Job Growth", or the number of new jobs created. However, what "job growth" does NOT take into account, is the number of jobs LOST! Not only does the number of jobs outnumber those created by a large margin, but those gained, on average, are substantially lower-paying than those gained!

You're off. Didn't you listen to President Clinton when he was campaigning, for God's sake? A lost factory job puts workers in a place when they have to find new work. This could be good - they get an education and get a higher-paying job, for instance. A real job - there's a lot of technical institutions (two year things, the kind of place advertising on TV) that give you a computer-based education so you can find work to replace the factory job you lost. Incidentally, it's hard to create a job that's lower-paying than a previous job, if you go by wages. I'd like to see statistics to back you up, anyway.

If our economy isn't falling, why is it that every nation that doesn't depend on the US economy has rising currency values and rising economies, and every country that's tied into the US economy, for business and trade (Canada, Japan, for example) is plumetting?

Are you trying to blame President Bush for rising currency values, "rising economies" (which sounds like a good thing - the kind of thing central African countries strive for), and plummeting business and trade in Canada and Japan? Listen to yourself. Freaking absurd. One man affects the economic scale, policies, and conditions of each and every person and country in the world! Yaay! Impossible!

You aren't as bad as the damn Bush supporters, but crap. All of you.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

No, my point is that Bush has trashed our economy, and that everyone else is staying steady, and that, if he has, as supporters say, improved it, than everyone else must be improving at an astonishing rate, which we know not to be true.

The jobs aren't all factory jobs. It's across the board. Half of the people I know have lost their jobs, and a lot of people (myself included) can't get a job because the positions are filled everywhere. Additionally, this isn't just about people losing jobs. It's about thousands of people a day entering the workforce, and finding that there aren't any jobs for them.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

According to this, things have begun to stabilize, but there was a good period there where there was a huge loss.

 

[Solid Fro]

Could the loss be due to 767s crashing into buildings in 2001?

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

I don't see how that affects job loss. If anything, 9/11 spurred job creation, as defense contractors and government agencies beefed up their personnel for war and the defense against future attacks.

Besides, look at the chart, the peak in job loss and the bottom of job gains came just about the same time as 9/11, they had been, steadily increasing and decreasing, respectively. The situation actually improved[i/] after 9/11!

 

[Solid Fro]

Airlines, tourism, communications all had major job loss. But, you're right, it did improve.

 

[High-Test]

Doesn't anyone know that the main source of revenue for the us govt was charging money on stock exchanges when we had a 1.3 trillion dollar surplus under clinton? when the IT stock was going thru the roof, the government was making a killing on all the exchanges. then, when the stock market fell, the money from the exchanges started dwindling. but, there have been thousands of job losses. if unions wouldn't charge so much, companies wouldn't have to outsource. if unions aren't there, people will complain about not being paid enough. It seems as if everyone has to bi*** about something.

 

[cardude2004]

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

According to this, things have begun to stabilize, but there was a good period there where there was a huge loss.

Do you realize that Clinton and Bush changed office in January of 01 and it was declining before that. Now jobs are going back up. It also dove when the buildings got hit and nobody invested in the stock market. I can't vote, but I think Bush should win. Kerry is worse than Bush. He will decrease intelligence budget and allow a terrorist attack again. Clinton took money from intelligence which allowed those terrorists to get into flight school and into the country in the first place. Kerry will allow this to happen and Bush won't. He wants to draft 150,000 people into the service as well. He will also take people out of Iraq and that country will go to the way it was in the time of Saddam Hussein.

 

[Solid Fro]

After the first attack on the WTC in 1993, Kerry proposed a $6 billion cut in the intelligence budget. Obviously, it was defeated in the Senate, 20 to 75. Not even Ted Kennedy (D-MA) could support it.

We don't need more Coalition troops in Iraq. We need more Iraqis troops protecting their country. As for Kerry pulling out troops, I just do not know. He keeps flip flopping on the issue.