Just curious who everyone here is liking in 2004 so far...

Not a very useful poll since only one of those democrats will stay in the race. Here the democratic vote is pretty much split 9 ways.

It is useful for gauging who people support for the primaries, and therefore who will be the Democratic candidate facing Bush. By adding up the votes for all the Democratic candidates and comparing the total to votes for Bush you get a fairly accurate idea how it stacks up Democratic candidate vs. Bush, whoever that Democratic candidate will be.

Wesley Clark. Extremely intelligent - Rhodes Scholar. Great background - war hero, 4 star general, nato-supreme allied commander, played a major role in stopping the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, degree and taught economics.

I think he'd be a moderate president and could help with the "war on terror" in building better coalitions with Europe and even Arab countries due to his role in Kosovo.

As you can tell from my previous messages, I can't stand Bush. That being said, I'd take (in this order) the following candidates over Bush:

1) Clark
2) Kerry
3) Lieberman
4) Dean
5) Edwards

If any of the others win the Democratic noimination (only Gephardt has any real chance of these), I WOULD vote for Bush because these guys are WAY too left wing.

BTW...I accidentally voted for Dean in the poll, take one away from Dean and add one to Clark to get the real results.

Originally posted by noahprtlnd
It is useful for gauging who people support for the primaries, and therefore who will be the Democratic candidate facing Bush. By adding up the votes for all the Democratic candidates and comparing the total to votes for Bush you get a fairly accurate idea how it stacks up Democratic candidate vs. Bush, whoever that Democratic candidate will be.

Pretty sloppy analysis and not statistically valid. I hate Bush, but if the democratic nominee were Sharpton, yeah I'd vote for Bush. Not a likely scenario, obviously, but some people feel that way about some of the other Dem candidates. I'm solidly democratic, but really not paying much attention to their race right now. It's so wide open it would involve too much energy on my part to sort through it. By the time I'm asked to make a choice (in the CA primaries) things will be much more streamlined.

I heard a speech by Gore and thought "they should have voted for this bloke as President" then I remembered - you did (hence that great bumper sticker "Re-elect Gore in 2004"). Remember polls on this forum count for nothing, nor do those in Florida, the only vote that counts is the electoral college that protects your republic from the people making the 'wrong' choice. Regime change begins at home.

Clark!

Al Sharpton......LOL what a joke

I don't much like any of the Democrats, but I think Bush and his thugs are truly dangerous.

Being from Massachusetts, I suppose I should be supporting Kerry. But I can't forgive him for giving Bush the go-ahead on Iraq. And then he voted against the 87bn in aid to that country. Like after what we've done to the Iraqi people, they now have to pay us for the current chaos that we're largely responsible for. Right.

So right now, Dean seems the most appealing.

The problem I see with Clark is he's a flip-flopper. As a loyal Democrat, I'm troubled by the fact that up until this year Clark was not even registered in the Democratic party. Clark was a vocal supporter of Bush in 2000, and an outspoken supporter of the appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense as well.
It seems now that he sees a chance to become President, he's suddenly anti-Bush, anti-Rumsfeld, and anti-what this administration has done in Iraq.
He is extremely intelligent, but even those in the Army dislike him and he's a four-star general. When NATO, under his command, had secured Kosovo, the Russians began marching toward the Pristina airport. Clark's response? Position ground troops to prevent the Russians from doing so, using force if necessary. The commander of the British ground forces refused, saying "I will not start WWIII for you."
Shortly after the Kosovo campaign, which was SUCCESSFUL, Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen said to Clark "get your fucking face off TV." I couldn't say it better myself- in my opinion, he is a reckless opportunist.

Originally posted by 8_wannabe
Pretty sloppy analysis and not statistically valid. I hate Bush, but if the democratic nominee were Sharpton, yeah I'd vote for Bush. Not a likely scenario, obviously, but some people feel that way about some of the other Dem candidates.

That is true, but note I said "fairly accurate." True, not every Democrat will support whoever the Democratic candidate may be. But, there will not be very many votes here for Sharpton and others that are farther left than the majority of the candidates. Besides, I expect that the majority of people who are not voting for Bush in this poll feel fairly strongly about removing Bush from office.

Originally posted by noahprtlnd
The problem I see with Clark is he's a flip-flopper. As a loyal Democrat, I'm troubled by the fact that up until this year Clark was not even registered in the Democratic party. Clark was a vocal supporter of Bush in 2000, and an outspoken supporter of the appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense as well.
It seems now that he sees a chance to become President, he's suddenly anti-Bush, anti-Rumsfeld, and anti-what this administration has done in Iraq.

Ok, let's get these facts straight. In 2000, after Bush took office he had a speech where he said Powell, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul O'Neil were a great team. Back then, they WERE by most objective sources, including many democrats. Powell was well-known for his diplomatic skills and moderate stances (which were ignored by the White House). Rumsfeld was the youngest Secretary of Defense in the Ford administration and was known as a smark guy. Paul O'Neil was the CEO of Alcoa and was successful there. In early 2002, he praised the Afghanistan performance as most Americans did at that time. Besides what's wrong with hoping another administration suceeds, especially if you aren't even in politics? Frankly, I put my country before a party ANY day.

He is now against them because of their policies and perhaps a bit of ambition, but how do you run for president without ambition?

QUOTE]Originally posted by noahprtlnd
He is extremely intelligent, but even those in the Army dislike him and he's a four-star general. When NATO, under his command, had secured Kosovo, the Russians began marching toward the Pristina airport. Clark's response? Position ground troops to prevent the Russians from doing so, using force if necessary. The commander of the British ground forces refused, saying "I will not start WWIII for you."
Shortly after the Kosovo campaign, which was SUCCESSFUL, Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen said to Clark "get your fucking face off TV." I couldn't say it better myself- in my opinion, he is a reckless opportunist. [/QUOTE]

I believe the reason he had enemies in the military WAS because he was so intelligent. Being a scholar and an intellectual isn't looked favorably in all circles there where macho/"one of the guys" theory is practiced. This same thing happens in schools with athletes, the inner city with young men, etc.

Look at the evaluations over the course of his career they released - they clearly show top-level performace. This all started with an open-ended character attack by Hugh Shelton who NEVER substantiated the criticism or even explained it. Personally, Shelton, Cohen and the like were afraid to take any casualties and Clark had some balls to stand up and try to prevent ethnic cleansing. I will take someone like that over a "Yes Man" any day. The man is a hero yet his character is getting ripped apart by his OWN party - pretty ridiculous.

Even more ridiculous is Joe Lieberman character attacks on Clark. This coming from the man that effectively barred the FASB (private body that sets accounting rules) from requiring that expensing of most stock options because of the special interests supporting him (they used this as a major source of compensation). This practice was considered to be a fundamental driver of the corporate accounting scandals in the past few years. Now a new bill is trying to basically do it again, but Joe is not there, I wonder why??? I'd support Lieberman for President, but I think he needs to lay off the character issue a bit.

In 2000, Bush was Clark's commander-in-chief. It is not up to the military to set policy, military officers implement policy. Clark was being the loyal military commander standing by his commander-in-chief (which according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, cannot be publicly criticized publicly.) Privately, Clark is opinioned and generally sure he is right in the face of opposition. This is not a popular temperment in the military, esp among one's superiors but would you want any less from a President? After all, Bush is certain he is right in the face of global opposition. The only problem with is, he is generally wrong (editorial comment.)

Originally posted by revhappy
Ok, let's get these facts straight. In 2000, after Bush took office he had a speech where he said Powell, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul O'Neil were a great team. Back then, they WERE by most objective sources, including many democrats. Powell was well-known for his diplomatic skills and moderate stances (which were ignored by the White House). Rumsfeld was the youngest Secretary of Defense in the Ford administration and was known as a smark guy. Paul O'Neil was the CEO of Alcoa and was successful there. In early 2002, he praised the Afghanistan performance as most Americans did at that time. Besides what's wrong with hoping another administration suceeds, especially if you aren't even in politics? Frankly, I put my country before a party ANY day.

He is now against them because of their policies and perhaps a bit of ambition, but how do you run for president without ambition?



You're absolutely right about Clark's support of Bush's administration at the beginning of the term being reasonable. However, only reasonable for a Republican or quite centrist Democrat. Any progressive was railing against Bush, and while Powell is indeed moderate and a popular choice, Rumsfeld has been a notorious hawk for thirty years. Revhappy, I respect your opinion, you're obviously knowledgeable and intelligent. However, as someone absolutely disgusted with this administration and frankly frightened about the future under it, I feel more comfortable moving to a position farther away from it then Clark represents. If Bush is a wolf, I fear Clark may be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Originally posted by 8_wannabe
In 2000, Bush was Clark's commander-in-chief. It is not up to the military to set policy, military officers implement policy. Clark was being the loyal military commander standing by his commander-in-chief (which according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, cannot be publicly criticized publicly.) Privately, Clark is opinioned and generally sure he is right in the face of opposition. This is not a popular temperment in the military, esp among one's superiors but would you want any less from a President? After all, Bush is certain he is right in the face of global opposition. The only problem with is, he is generally wrong (editorial comment.)


Clark was forced to step down before Bush ever took office. Bush was never his commander-in-chief. Clark not only praised the Bush administration in it's infancy, but continued to make lavish public speeches heaping praise on Bush after 9-11. This guy voted for Reagan and Nixon, and he's running for the Democratic nomination?

Originally posted by noahprtlnd
You're absolutely right about Clark's support of Bush's administration at the beginning of the term being reasonable. However, only reasonable for a Republican or quite centrist Democrat. Any progressive was railing against Bush, and while Powell is indeed moderate and a popular choice, Rumsfeld has been a notorious hawk for thirty years. Revhappy, I respect your opinion, you're obviously knowledgeable and intelligent. However, as someone absolutely disgusted with this administration and frankly frightened about the future under it, I feel more comfortable moving to a position farther away from it then Clark represents. If Bush is a wolf, I fear Clark may be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Well, I'm not really a progressive. I was an independent until the "Republican Revolution" in 1994 when that party really went right wing and I was forced to support democrats (whose leadership was moderate).

If the Republicans would put forth candidates for president with positions that their northeastern party members have, they'd have a chance for my vote. However, with their right wing congressional leadership, I'm afraid to even vote for one locally I like for fear of them walking the party line on key votes. I think the same thing in an opposite way is happenning with Zell Miller in Georgia.

I'm for the moderate wing of the party as frankly I don't think a real progressive can win (and I'm not sure if I'd be for their policies). A democratic candidate other than a southerner has not won the presidency since Kennedy and many of them have had crushing defeats since then. Dean, while seeming to be a champion of the left, does seem to have the balls (and seemed more moderate as the Vermont governor) to perhaps be competitive in the south and midwest - and would get my vote (in an election with Bush) because of these two things.

Originally posted by noahprtlnd
Clark was forced to step down before Bush ever took office. Bush was never his commander-in-chief. Clark not only praised the Bush administration in it's infancy, but continued to make lavish public speeches heaping praise on Bush after 9-11. This guy voted for Reagan and Nixon, and he's running for the Democratic nomination?

Many democrats voted for republicans....they were caled "Reagon Democrats" and have been ever increasing over the last two decades.. If their attitude that only certain, very limited people are able to be democrats (or leaders) then hopes for victory are slim to none. Perhaps Reagan Democrats will vote again democratic...for someone they see similar to themselves?

I voted for Perot in 1992 and a couple of republicans since then, would you refuse my vote for a democrat in the future? The democrats offered Senator Jeffords a committe chairmanship when he left the Republican party three years ago.

Originally posted by revhappy
Dean, while seeming to be a champion of the left, does seem to have the balls (and seemed more moderate as the Vermont governor) to perhaps be competitive in the south and midwest - and would get my vote (in an election with Bush) because of these two things.

Fact is, Dean *is* moderate as his record as governor shows (as you point out). Too moderate for my lefty tastes :D . But I'm hoping that means he has at least a chance of winning. I don't see anyone else with that chance. IMHO, Kerry can't win. I don't think anyone from (my) Massachusetts can win...:confused:

Revhappy, did you consider Clinton progressive or moderate?

Originally posted by revhappy
A democratic candidate other than a southerner has not won the presidency since Kennedy and many of them have had crushing defeats since then.


That's true, but it's interesting to look at the four defeats that northern Democrats have suffered since Kennedy. Humphrey lost to Nixon in 68, not much of a surprise considering Humphrey was VP during the LBJ Vietnam fiasco. McGovern lost to Nixon in 72, facing a strong incumbent; same goes for Mondale facing Reagan in 84. Finally, in 88 Dukakis lost to Bush Sr; to be expected following the Reagan years.
So these four losses by northern Democrats were in difficult elections; in 2004, you have a susceptible incumbent and a non-VP running against him, unlike Humphrey and Mondale.

Originally posted by Hayseed
Fact is, Dean *is* moderate as his record as governor shows (as you point out). Too moderate for my lefty tastes :D . But I'm hoping that means he has at least a chance of winning. I don't see anyone else with that chance. IMHO, Kerry can't win. I don't think anyone from (my) Massachusetts can win...:confused:

Yes, but his campaign is running left....way left. I'd put Gephardt, Braun then Kucinich and Sharpton from least to most left wing.

I hope (if he wins) he runs nationally in a moderate way. Kerry is a war hero, but he's had a few missteps. I can already see the republicans say Dean is a New York liberal (since he grew up there).

Originally posted by noahprtlnd
Revhappy, did you consider Clinton progressive or moderate?

Originally campaigned as a moderate, first 2 years - liberal, rest-moderate as his legacy should go down as.

Originally posted by noahprtlnd
That's true, but it's interesting to look at the four defeats that northern Democrats have suffered since Kennedy. Humphrey lost to Nixon in 68, not much of a surprise considering Humphrey was VP during the LBJ Vietnam fiasco. McGovern lost to Nixon in 72, facing a strong incumbent; same goes for Mondale facing Reagan in 84. Finally, in 88 Dukakis lost to Bush Sr; to be expected following the Reagan years.
So these four losses by northern Democrats were in difficult elections; in 2004, you have a susceptible incumbent and a non-VP running against him, unlike Humphrey and Mondale.

Then why did Reagan beat Carter and Bush Jr. beat Gore? I hope you are right, but I'm not optimistic if someone like Gephardt were to be nominated.

Originally posted by revhappy
Then why did Reagan beat Carter and Bush Jr. beat Gore? I hope you are right, but I'm not optimistic if someone like Gephardt were to be nominated.

I didn't include Carter and Gore in that because they are southerners and you were talking about northern Democrats losing. However, Carter lost after a weak first term to Reagan, and Gore actually won. Regardless, he was an outgoing VP like Humphrey and Mondale.

Like after what we've done to the Iraqi people, they now have to pay us for the current chaos that we're largely responsible for. Right. Give me a break. That country was in complete chaos before anything ever happened. People were starving every f*cking day and nobody gave a damn. Now LESS people (believe it or not) are without food and water, but since Iraq is in the public eye the US caused it! What a joke. Terrorist bombings have been going off for 50 years and no one has ever said anything about it. Now it is in the public eye because it is affecting the US and WE caused it. What a joke. Everything is so political it makes me sick! We attacked Iraq because of the oil. What a joke! Iraq's biggest exportation of oil pre-war was...guess who...FRANCE and RUSSIA! But the US is oil starved. If we wanted their oil we could have gotten it at anytime! Iraq and that damn leadership has given the US plenty of opportunities to go off and claim oil, if that was our main goal. No blood for oil. What a joke!

As for Clark and the rest of the democratic hopefuls. They are all a bunch of 2-faced lying jagoffs. They will say whatever they need to, to get elected. Period. Clark, Dean, Kerry...all of them. Did you all see Clark cry on 60 mintues last week. What a joke! The only person that has stuck to his guns and never went back on his word is Sharpton, but he is SO extreme he stands no chance.

Let me say this right now. Bush is going to almost impossible to beat. IF the democrats want to claim office, they must pick the candidate that is the farthest of left as they can, without having Sharpton's views. If a moderate candidate wins the electorial vote, that person has no shot.

Bush in 2004!

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
Give me a break. That country was in complete chaos before anything ever happened. People were starving every f*cking day and nobody gave a damn. Now LESS people (believe it or not) are without food and water, but since Iraq is in the public eye the US caused it! What a joke. Terrorist bombings have been going off for 50 years and no one has ever said anything about it. Now it is in the public eye because it is affecting the US and WE caused it. What a joke. Everything is so political it makes me sick! We attacked Iraq because of the oil. What a joke! Iraq's biggest exportation of oil pre-war was...guess who...FRANCE and RUSSIA! But the US is oil starved. If we wanted their oil we could have gotten it at anytime! Iraq and that damn leadership has given the US plenty of opportunities to go off and claim oil, if that was our main goal. No blood for oil. What a joke!

As for Clark and the rest of the democratic hopefuls. They are all a bunch of 2-faced lying jagoffs. They will say whatever they need to, to get elected. Period. Clark, Dean, Kerry...all of them. Did you all see Clark cry on 60 mintues last week. What a joke! The only person that has stuck to his guns and never went back on his word is Sharpton, but he is SO extreme he stands no chance.

Let me say this right now. Bush is going to almost impossible to beat. IF the democrats want to claim office, they must pick the candidate that is the farthest of left as they can, without having Sharpton's views. If a moderate candidate wins the electorial vote, that person has no shot.

Bush in 2004!

Lying jagoffs? So does that make you for or against Bush?

Vince

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
As for Clark and the rest of the democratic hopefuls. They are all a bunch of 2-faced lying jagoffs. They will say whatever they need to, to get elected. Period. Clark, Dean, Kerry...all of them. Did you all see Clark cry on 60 mintues last week. What a joke! The only person that has stuck to his guns and never went back on his word is Sharpton, but he is SO extreme he stands no chance.

Let me say this right now. Bush is going to almost impossible to beat. IF the democrats want to claim office, they must pick the candidate that is the farthest of left as they can, without having Sharpton's views. If a moderate candidate wins the electorial vote, that person has no shot.

Bush in 2004!


Well...if you have taken a few bullets in a war AND continued to fight, then I'll let you indirect smear (i.e. Clark is a Wus cause he had one tear on 60 Minutes II) go unchallenged. Was Bush I a "jagoff" too because he has cried hundreds of more tears?:confused: Bush I, Clark and Kerry all had the balls to go to frontline combat, not just appear on an aircraft carrier with a flight suit. You certainly don't have to be a military man to be president, but if national defense is going to be used as a wedge against others - then courage IS an issue.

Clark has never held political office and had a couple of missteps in the first week or so in the campaign - no big deal. Bush has gotten where he has based on privledge. He was a mediocre student that got into the Ivy league based on legacy - he was known to lack interest in learning in general. He was a failed businessman yet somehow got elected governor of Texas?

As for sticking to his guns or being honest, Bush is far from that. He said he would sign the Kyoto treaty - he did not when he got into office. He said his tax cuts would not help cause deficits when most economists thought it would (have u seen how large it is now??). He is supposed to be a champion of the free market yet he institutes steel tariffs (which are killing Detroit and other industries as well as being a tax increase on me and you) and quotas on chinese textile imports? He says one thing when his policies do just the opposite. Most of the promises he kept have been with his old friends - have you seen the defeated Energy Bill?

i'm voting for Bush in 2004 as i did when he beat out Gore. General Clark is interesting and was incredible during his stint on cnn but i'm not ready to vote for him yet to lead our country.

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
Give me a break. That country was in complete chaos before anything ever happened. People were starving every f*cking day and nobody gave a damn. Now LESS people (believe it or not) are without food and water, but since Iraq is in the public eye the US caused it! What a joke. Terrorist bombings have been going off for 50 years and no one has ever said anything about it. Now it is in the public eye because it is affecting the US and WE caused it. What a joke. Everything is so political it makes me sick! We attacked Iraq because of the oil. What a joke! Iraq's biggest exportation of oil pre-war was...guess who...FRANCE and RUSSIA! But the US is oil starved. If we wanted their oil we could have gotten it at anytime! Iraq and that damn leadership has given the US plenty of opportunities to go off and claim oil, if that was our main goal. No blood for oil. What a joke!


I can't understand a word of this, so I ran it through a translater. It returned with this picture, and said "I think you know what to do"
http://homepage.interaccess.com/~whizbang/idiot.gif

What a joke!

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
Give me a break. That country was in complete chaos before anything ever happened. People were starving every f*cking day and nobody gave a damn. Now LESS people (believe it or not) are without food and water, but since Iraq is in the public eye the US caused it! Bush in 2004!

Iraq was in chaos, and people were starving, and babies were dying primarily because of the draconian sanctions we imposed since the last Gulf War. And you're right, no one cared. Certainly not our government.

Yeah, Sadam was a nightmare, but there are lots of nightmare despots in the world. And I actually don't think it was about oil. But it certainly had nothing to do bin Laden or the war against terrorism, either. To me, it seems more of a piece with Rumsfield and his fellow neoconservatives' unbelievably arrogant attempt to put an American face on the rest of the world and, in particular, on the middle east. Face it, there was no reason to go in.

But now that we're there, we should have the good grace to pay (with grants, not loans) to clean up the mess we've made.

If I had to vote Democrat, Lieberman, than Gephardt would be my choices. As I didn't vote for Bush last time he probably won't be my choice this time either. The Libertarian Party is still the true conservative voice. I support W on the war but his social spending is way out of line. Bush will probably take this election as the country won't want to change leaders in the middle of wartime. It's 2008 that will be the real test. Bush is done, Cheney won't be a candidate and Mrs. Powell probably won't let Colin run. Then there is Hillary.. She will be one tough candidate. She will have all the mindless women vote, all of the left wing and minorities. The Republicans must be shaking in their boots.

Originally posted by Hayseed
Iraq was in chaos, and people were starving, and babies were dying primarily because of the draconian sanctions we imposed since the last Gulf War. And you're right, no one cared. Certainly not our government.

Yeah, Sadam was a nightmare, but there are lots of nightmare despots in the world. And I actually don't think it was about oil. But it certainly had nothing to do bin Laden or the war against terrorism, either. To me, it seems more of a piece with Rumsfield and his fellow neoconservatives' unbelievably arrogant attempt to put an American face on the rest of the world and, in particular, on the middle east. Face it, there was no reason to go in.

But now that we're there, we should have the good grace to pay (with grants, not loans) to clean up the mess we've made.

Seeing the celebration of the Iraqi people at the end of the war, watching them cheer as the statue of a ruthless dictator was torn down, is reason enough for me to say we did a good thing. Of course, I'm sure all of that was staged and nobody celebrated the Iraqis' freedom, right?

It's amazing to me how all the bleeding-heart liberals who are supposed to be so caring and compassionate would want us to leave before the infrastructure is in place to guarantee the Iraqis their freedom. What a bunch of hypocrites! How would you feel if members of your family were executed by the Bush administration because you are publicly speaking out against Bush? Well, if you were to take your blinders off, you'd see that that's what Iraq was like under Saddam.

Quit taking your own freedom for granted, and rejoice when others gain theirs, even if it's on the other side of the world.

And for those of you who say you 'hate' Bush, I am hoping that you just have a limited vocabulary and couldn't come up with a better description of your feelings. I'd like to know exactly why you feel hatred for the man. I was greatly opposed to President Clinton and became politically active to the point of demonstrations, but I never 'hated' the man. I had no respect for him, and felt that he degraded to office of the president, but I didn't hate him - I just wanted him to lose :D

Originally posted by khoney
Seeing the celebration of the Iraqi people at the end of the war, watching them cheer as the statue of a ruthless dictator was torn down, is reason enough for me to say we did a good thing. Of course, I'm sure all of that was staged and nobody celebrated the Iraqis' freedom, right?

It's amazing to me how all the bleeding-heart liberals who are supposed to be so caring and compassionate would want us to leave before the infrastructure is in place to guarantee the Iraqis their freedom. What a bunch of hypocrites! How would you feel if members of your family were executed by the Bush administration because you are publicly speaking out against Bush? Well, if you were to take your blinders off, you'd see that that's what Iraq was like under Saddam.

Quit taking your own freedom for granted, and rejoice when others gain theirs, even if it's on the other side of the world.

And for those of you who say you 'hate' Bush, I am hoping that you just have a limited vocabulary and couldn't come up with a better description of your feelings. I'd like to know exactly why you feel hatred for the man. I was greatly opposed to President Clinton and became politically active to the point of demonstrations, but I never 'hated' the man. I had no respect for him, and felt that he degraded to office of the president, but I didn't hate him - I just wanted him to lose :D

Whos said we should get out? I said only that we had no business going in. We can't get out now. It would be irresponsible and the height of hypocracy. But it was shameless adventurism to go in.

As for Bush...never said I hated him. He'd probably make a great neighbor. I just don't want him as my president. He ain't too bright and he surrounds himself by very smart and very dangerous right wing lunatics who have more than their share of power.

Originally posted by Habeeb
If I had to vote Democrat, Lieberman, than Gephardt would be my choices. As I didn't vote for Bush last time he probably won't be my choice this time either. The Libertarian Party is still the true conservative voice. I support W on the war but his social spending is way out of line. Bush will probably take this election as the country won't want to change leaders in the middle of wartime.


I applaud your decision to be outside the 2-party system. BUT if you're committed to removing Bush from office, I urge you to vote Democratic in 2004 if just for that purpose. You may see it as the lesser of two evils, but so be it. If enough people that say "Bush will win in 2004, and I don't like the Democrat candidates very much anyway" vote Democratic, then Bush will be removed and at least there will be a chance for improvement. (in the opinion of those that dislike Bush). Handing Bush the win before the election will only ensure his victory.

I hate GWB and most everything he stands for. For those that feel I'm wrong, hear is a different challenge:

Tell me three good things that he has done for our nation since taking office (and don't paraphrase).

I want clear cut things that are hard to argue against.

Good luck.


Vince

I'm not commited to removing Bush from office. He's done as good with our defense, really the true job of government, as anyone could have. I won't fret if he is there for another four years. I just prefer the Libertarian point of view. Do anything you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or deprive anyone of their civil rights. Government as small as needed. National retail sales tax. You folks know the drill. oh yeah.. as for what he has done.. anyone seen Osama's camel jockey face recently?? and the last time I checked Sadamm hasn't popped his mug up either.. only a matter of time for those two crminials to meet Allah... it would take a lot more than just not favoring W to make me take a plunge and vote Democratic...

Well, there's.... um..... what about..... uh....oh, I know.....hmm.....

Sure got quiet around here!

All the loud Bushies can't think of three good things in there own words?

Whatcha waiting for? The latest crap on FOX news or Rush's Monday load of bile?

I know it's the part of having to think for yourself that made you all quiet!

Vince

All the loud Bushies can't think of three good things in there own words? First off it is THEIR, not there.

OK three things. 1) Foreign Policy- Bush actually has the balls to do something about the crap going on in the world. Not just in the Middle East but also other parts of the world (ie Africa, Indonesia etc...) 2) Bush passed a great education reform bill that was written up by the democrats, particularly Kennedy. It's funny because after he passed it the dems are saying that the Bush pushed around money to other places bla bla bla, it was YOUR bill. We realize that you didn't think Bush would pass it, but stop crying already. 3) He also passed a great partial birth abortion law. Something that Clinton veteod twice while he was in the white house. 4) How about the environment. The environment you say. Well, Bush's Clear Skies Initiative will cut the three worst air pollutants, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Dioxide, and Mercury, by 70%. His Global Climate Initiative will reduce Greenhouse Gases by 18% over the next 10 years worldwide. 5) Homeland Security...enough said. 6) Bush's committment to HIV in Africa. Someone had to do it. Since Clinton ignored it for 8 years while the epidemic increased 10 fold... 7) Tax cuts. I want all your tax returns since you don't like the policy. Maybe you wouldn't have this RX-8 in taxes were at an all-time high like they were in the 1990's. There is a huge misconception that the economy is down because of Bush and his tax cuts. Anyone who says that couldn't be more wrong. Economy is down because of 9/11 plain and simple. Bush didn't get a fair chance to show how his plans to address certain issues will work. 9/11 happened and it was all downhill from there. The airlines and hotel business etc...are in bankrupcy beucase of the tax cuts?!? No, because people aren't flying (you know the rest). The stock market took a dive because of 9/11 and the terrorist bombings and the war. Markets don't go up in time of war.

You want to talk about the budget. Fine let's talk. No wartime president has EVER not had a budget problem in wartime. I'll regress for a second, Clinton got into office at the best time, at a technology boom that we will never see again. The internet and CPU's became household names and the revenue outlet that it provided made money. Period. Clinton also cut the military by over 70%!!!! Are you kidding me?! He had a chance to go after Bin Laden in 1995 but elected not to. According to a military source, since Clinton cut military spending so much they didn't have the resources. It's a shame that people never heard of Bin Laden until 9/11. He was #1 on the "wanted" list since 1991. But Clinton just sat on his ass and didn't nothing, cut spending and watched the economy boom from technology. Clinton didn't do anything to MAKE the money. HE was just in office at that time and didn't spend any. If you really are a student of history you would know the facts that in the last 6-9 months of Clintons reign the economy was in a downward spiral. That is fact my friends. It was up to Bush to get it back together and then 9/11 happened...

Look I don't care what you say about Bush's education. He graduated from Yale and got a masters at Harvard and served in the Air National Guard as an F-102 (?) fighter pilot. Your hersay of whether he liked learning, is a joke. Save it for a skit on Saturday Night Live. The fact is, most people are stupid. They equate their money growing in their pockets during the 90's with Clinton, when Clinton had very little to do with it. And they want that back. I don't blame them. But I think we can get it with Bush. THe economy is on it's way back up, jobs are increasing and it doesn't happen over night. 9/11 f*ucked our country up economically. In America, we need and want everything quickly. This is something that needs time and we are moving int he right direction.

Now I will take this time to blast the dems. First Clinton, although I won't spend too much time on him since he is too easy of a target. Now everyone knows about Whitewater and his BJ's in the oval office. But there are some juicier scandals that have been suppressed. Clinton pardoned over 140 people 2 hours before he left offic. One in particular (Marc Rich who had been a fugitive on tax evasion and fraud charges for 17 years) cries for an explanation. Even Tom Daschle (who I absolutely despise) said he was troubled by the pardon. How about, Hillary's $100,000 commodity profit from a $1,000 investment. Or how about receiving $270,000 from Archer Daniels Midland corporation (who makes 60% of US ethanol for gas, and none of the methanol) after Clinton ordered that 30% of gasoline sold in American's 9 most polluted cities contain ethanol based additives by 1996 (as opposed to cheaper methanol). How about Clinton fund raising. He has raised the most money than any politician in history. Given his scandalous history you think they are true grants? How about Clinton's body count. Anyone heard for Ron Brown? He was Clinton's Commerce Secretary who was under active investigation at the time of his death. Officially his death is listed as a plane crash, which could be true, but people want to know more. Or how about this one: Tcase of Mary Mahoney, a former White House Intern who was working at a Washington Starbucks when she and two co-workers were shot by unknown attackers. The case is unsolved. The conspiracy goes that "someone" had her killed because they thought she was Monica and wanted to cover-up the scandal. THis is just food for thought and I am not saying that Clinton had knowledge of these deaths.

OK, now one thing that bothers me immensely is all the dems crying and bitching that we attacked Iraq without enough reason, bla bla bla. Now let's not forget Operation Desert Fox. Clinton bombed Iraq WITHOUT UN APPROVAL, sh*t he didn't even give a warning. Why did he do it? Because at this time the Monica ordeal was just coming out and he wanted to get America's attention diverted away from the BJ's and toward something else. Clinton claims to have done it because "Saddam Hussein was failing to live up to his commitment to allow unrestricted access to U.N. weapons inspectors." "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons." But in any case, Tom Daschle (again I despise this man) and the rest of the 2-faced democrats said in a speech that they will stand behind their president and show uniformity to other foreign nations. Where were you in Iraq? Democrats will say anything to get popular support. How can Hillary and other democratic hopefuls agree with military action and then disallow it? It is riduculous and uncomprehensible. But yet you all (well some of you) are in such a hurry to kick Bush out. It is kind of funny.

Is that quite enough for you?

You heard it here first. My prediction will be that Cheney will not run as VP. Bush really needs to separate himself from that guy. They will claim it is health problems. So Bush's running mater will be Condoleezza Rice (who I love...not literally but...). An african american, female as a VP?!?! Wow, Bush will win in a landslide with 66% of the vote.

i will vote bush out of office. He a close minded pig just like his father. They say the apple dosen't fall to far from teh tree.

Goldenhue22:

"Tell me three good things that he has done for our nation since taking office (and don't paraphrase).

I want clear cut things that are hard to argue against."

Did I stutter? You haven't met any of the criteria of my challenge, please try again.

And do you think I should have capitalized "THEIR" also?

Vince

Originally posted by Habeeb
as for what he has done.. anyone seen Osama's camel jockey face recently?? only a matter of time for those two crminials to meet Allah...

LOL! Habeeb calling Osama a camel jockey is beyond anything I could come up with.

Originally posted by revhappy
Wesley Clark. Extremely intelligent - Rhodes Scholar. Great background - war hero, 4 star general, nato-supreme allied commander, played a major role in stopping the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, degree and taught economics.

I think he'd be a moderate president and could help with the "war on terror" in building better coalitions with Europe and even Arab countries due to his role in Kosovo.



AND -- Wes Clark drives a Miata!

Oh this is fun...let me take a crack at these:

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
First off it is THEIR, not there.

OK three things. 1) Foreign Policy- Bush actually has the balls to do something about the crap going on in the world. Not just in the Middle East but also other parts of the world (ie Africa, Indonesia etc...)

Let's see.....he turned the whole world against us, including all of our allies. Most of these countries were for us in the Afghanistan conflict, but now are against us in Iraq and seemingly now in general as well. His obstinate stances on Kyoto, the nuclear proliferation treaty as well as many others has turned even our NATO allies against us.

The Iraq conflict is spreading our forces too thin and the Afghanistan conflict is being compromised. He performed amazngly in the first 4 months of that war, but somehow forgot all about it while Bin Laden, Zahirri (Sp?) and Omar are still loose spreading the violent hate. Al Queda IS still attacking us as the frequency of terrorist acts (Tunisia, Iraq andc Turkey) is increasing. I understand his neo-con spun idea of using Iraq to transform the middle east into democracy, but it is not an easy mission, especially with our stretched forces. In fact, its spawning more terrorists and this approach would be much better accomlpished through a REAL coalition. Would you support a draft to have adequate forces to attempt this?

Speaking of foreign policy, he reinstituted the Global Gag rule. That mean any institution that provides are even speaks positively about abortion is denied any family planning funds - basically most family planning organizations. As a result, the african nations you reference are not receivng funds to provide education and condoms to aids ravaged (and many babies that can't be fed) therfore increrasing the misery all in the name of the religious right - absolute lunacy.

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
2) Bush passed a great education reform bill that was written up by the democrats, particularly Kennedy. It's funny because after he passed it the dems are saying that the Bush pushed around money to other places bla bla bla, it was YOUR bill. We realize that you didn't think Bush would pass it, but stop crying already.

Please! The bill is considered weak and there is little funding to support any of the worthwhile initiatives. All he really supports are vouchers, which basically screws the kids with ignorant or bad parents.

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
3) He also passed a great partial birth abortion law. Something that Clinton veteod twice while he was in the white house. [/QUOTE

Something that many doctors say IS medically necessary. This is the first step to the erosion of Roe vs. Wade.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Goldenhue22
4) How about the environment. The environment you say. Well, Bush's Clear Skies Initiative will cut the three worst air pollutants, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Dioxide, and Mercury, by 70%. His Global Climate Initiative will reduce Greenhouse Gases by 18% over the next 10 years worldwide.

You have got be kidding with me with these bogus numbers! I work in this energy industry and his removal of New Source Review is going to increase emissions! Do you really think power plants are going to put in scrubbers in dirty coal power plants? That's a huge cost that's not going to be taken on if its optional! In fact, why do you think a group of northeastern states (some of which republican governors) are suing the EPA and federal goverment over this? Just about every major environmental group is against nearly all of his environmental policies, yet you are going to say they just love red tape. Well, let' see who has more of an incentive - big business - less regulations = more profits, environmental groups = support cleaner air, water, etc with regulations being one means to that. Even Bill O'Reilly said this administation is bad for the environment. This can be a huge debate in itslef so I'll leave it at that.

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
5) Homeland Security...enough said.


Except that planes are still not being checked for cargo, the borders are not secure and we have not prepared for a bioterror attack.

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
6) Bush's committment to HIV in Africa. Someone had to do it. Since Clinton ignored it for 8 years while the epidemic increased 10 fold...

See my earlier comment on family planning. Clinton has raised a lot of $$ on his own since leaving office. I wonder who would be more welcome in South Africa?

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
7) Tax cuts. I want all your tax returns since you don't like the policy. Maybe you wouldn't have this RX-8 in taxes were at an all-time high like they were in the 1990's. There is a huge misconception that the economy is down because of Bush and his tax cuts. Anyone who says that couldn't be more wrong. Economy is down because of 9/11 plain and simple. Bush didn't get a fair chance to show how his plans to address certain issues will work. 9/11 happened and it was all downhill from there. The airlines and hotel business etc...are in bankrupcy beucase of the tax cuts?!? No, because people aren't flying (you know the rest). The stock market took a dive because of 9/11 and the terrorist bombings and the war. Markets don't go up in time of war.

Wait, first it was Clinton's fault, but now it's 9/11? In the last election, almost every economist and budgetary guru knew his tax cuts (a campaign strategy forced by Steve Forbes in the 2000 primary) would cause deficits. Wars tend to provide economic boons by the increased spending and production. Let's see how wonderful his tax cuts were:

Rich people get most of the money while the stock market is down. Tax cuts help put federal, state and local goverments into record deficits. The goverments issue bonds, many of which yield tax free interest income to the investors. Wealthy people buy muni's because they have huge amounts of wealth that yield a large fixed income from the ~ 5% or so after-tax return on muni's. Add to the fact that they are in the highest marginal tax bracket and bingo they buy these like crazy. So, basically a big chunk of his tax cut had to be loaned back to the various branches of goverments at a higher interest rates than the growth in GDP. This is a bad policy. The only thing saving us from a downright scary recession was the housing market fueled by Mr Greenspan's lower interest rates.

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
You want to talk about the budget. Fine let's talk. No wartime president has EVER not had a budget problem in wartime. I'll regress for a second, Clinton got into office at the best time, at a technology boom that we will never see again. The internet and CPU's became household names and the revenue outlet that it provided made money. Period. Clinton also cut the military by over 70%!!!! Are you kidding me?! He had a chance to go after Bin Laden in 1995 but elected not to. According to a military source, since Clinton cut military spending so much they didn't have the resources. It's a shame that people never heard of Bin Laden until 9/11. He was #1 on the "wanted" list since 1991. But Clinton just sat on his ass and didn't nothing, cut spending and watched the economy boom from technology. Clinton didn't do anything to MAKE the money. HE was just in office at that time and didn't spend any. If you really are a student of history you would know the facts that in the last 6-9 months of Clintons reign the economy was in a downward spiral. That is fact my friends. It was up to Bush to get it back together and then 9/11 happened...

You know pre-9/11 was a different world and Bush's first 9 months were conducted the same way as Clinton's. Any US president would have responded the way he did in Afghanistan. Clinton reduced the deficit (created by Reagan and Bush I) to the point of a surplus. He was there for 8 years and with the help of Rubin and Co. instituted moderate policies that helped the economy. In addition, his free trade stances helped as well - something Bush has not supported based on his actions - steel (tariffs) and chinese textiles (quotas)

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
Look I don't care what you say about Bush's education. He graduated from Yale and got a masters at Harvard and served in the Air National Guard as an F-102 (?) fighter pilot. Your hersay of whether he liked learning, is a joke. Save it for a skit on Saturday Night Live. The fact is, most people are stupid. They equate their money growing in their pockets during the 90's with Clinton, when Clinton had very little to do with it. And they want that back. I don't blame them. But I think we can get it with Bush. THe economy is on it's way back up, jobs are increasing and it doesn't happen over night. 9/11 f*ucked our country up economically. In America, we need and want everything quickly. This is something that needs time and we are moving int he right direction.

His entrance to Yale and Harvard was based on legacy. He was a C student and is considered by his peers to be uninterested in learning. The Texas Air National Guard was used to avoid combat and was not anything close to the committment and experience the actual Vietnam war veterans had. . If he was interested in serving he would have elisted as his privlidged Yale colleuge John Kerry did.

So, you give Clinton no credit for the economy, yet give Bush no blame? That's pretty interesting. Bush will likely become the first preident since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss in jobs during his presidency.

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
Now I will take this time to blast the dems. First Clinton, although I won't spend too much time on him since he is too easy of a target. Now everyone knows about Whitewater and his BJ's in the oval office. But there are some juicier scandals that have been suppressed. Clinton pardoned over 140 people 2 hours before he left offic. One in particular (Marc Rich who had been a fugitive on tax evasion and fraud charges for 17 years) cries for an explanation. Even Tom Daschle (who I absolutely despise) said he was troubled by the pardon. How about, Hillary's $100,000 commodity profit from a $1,000 investment. Or how about receiving $270,000 from Archer Daniels Midland corporation (who makes 60% of US ethanol for gas, and none of the methanol) after Clinton ordered that 30% of gasoline sold in American's 9 most polluted cities contain ethanol based additives by 1996 (as opposed to cheaper methanol). How about Clinton fund raising. He has raised the most money than any politician in history. Given his scandalous history you think they are true grants? How about Clinton's body count. Anyone heard for Ron Brown? He was Clinton's Commerce Secretary who was under active investigation at the time of his death. Officially his death is listed as a plane crash, which could be true, but people want to know more. Or how about this one: Tcase of Mary Mahoney, a former White House Intern who was working at a Washington Starbucks when she and two co-workers were shot by unknown attackers. The case is unsolved. The conspiracy goes that "someone" had her killed because they thought she was Monica and wanted to cover-up the scandal. THis is just food for thought and I am not saying that Clinton had knowledge of these deaths..

Bush will break Clinton's records easily this time as he has amassed three times as much as Dean (the leading Democrat) with a much larger $/donor. Clinton's pardons were bad and I was upset at them. However, the supposed scandals were a joke and the $ spent on them was a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. Bush's best buddies were in charge of Enron and he let them write his enegy policy. Corporate Pig Farm lots have been encouraged by this administration even when court cases try to close these polluting, inhumane businesses. These are just a sample of Mr Bush's unethical actions.

As for these ridiculous smear tactics on Clinton, if you can't prove your case with empirical evidence its just a character attack with no basis.

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
OK, now one thing that bothers me immensely is all the dems crying and bitching that we attacked Iraq without enough reason, bla bla bla. Now let's not forget Operation Desert Fox. Clinton bombed Iraq WITHOUT UN APPROVAL, sh*t he didn't even give a warning. Why did he do it? Because at this time the Monica ordeal was just coming out and he wanted to get America's attention diverted away from the BJ's and toward something else. Clinton claims to have done it because "Saddam Hussein was failing to live up to his commitment to allow unrestricted access to U.N. weapons inspectors." "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons." But in any case, Tom Daschle (again I despise this man) and the rest of the 2-faced democrats said in a speech that they will stand behind their president and show uniformity to other foreign nations. Where were you in Iraq? Democrats will say anything to get popular support. How can Hillary and other democratic hopefuls agree with military action and then disallow it? It is riduculous and uncomprehensible. But yet you all (well some of you) are in such a hurry to kick Bush out. It is kind of funny.

Is that quite enough for you?

That's quite different from our attack out of the blue based on fear of a "mushroom cloud". There was no real evidence of a terrorist connection. Countries like North Korea are much more dangerous and that threat has increased significantly during the last three years.

You continue the demonization of the domocrats with wild conspiracy theories that are nothing more than smears. If they were legitimate, there would be court cases as it would prop up the career of any prosecutor who brought one of these to trial.

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
You heard it here first. My prediction will be that Cheney will not run as VP. Bush really needs to separate himself from that guy. They will claim it is health problems. So Bush's running mater will be Condoleezza Rice (who I love...not literally but...). An african american, female as a VP?!?! Wow, Bush will win in a landslide with 66% of the vote.

Probobly not. I don't see tons of African Americans supporting Walter Williams. God help usif Cheney is gone, who is going to be President then?

Revhappy:

The problem with trying to answer the nutso-right propaganda is that while it is very easy to do it detracts from the original question.

Vince

Originally posted by compaddict
Revhappy:

The problem with trying to answer the nutso-right propaganda is that while it is very easy to do it detracts from the original question.

Vince

Yes, sometimes its hard not to challenge the Rush Limbaugh style smearing.

I've been trying the "three good things" approach with great success.

I used to start off with "I'll name three good things that Clinton did..." but I found I was just giving ammunition and creating a bridge getting away from what I wanted.

The new way is simple and put the ball in their court.

Have fun!

Vince
(A gun toting liberal Democrat)

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
First off it is THEIR, not there.


I'll regress for a second....


Since you're big on correcting people, careful with your use of the word "regress." I think you mean "digress".
Wait, you were talking about the Bush administration...yeah you did mean "regress."

Interesting article today.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/997307.asp?0cv=CB20

And this coming from the conservative news media....that's scary.

Forget the candidates…

Who's going to let you keep more of what you earn?

Who is more likely to take the necessary steps to fight terrorism?

Who is going to do more to protect you from violent criminals?

Who is going to make educators think that if they don’t effectively educate there might actually be repercussions?

Who is going to appoint judges who will uphold the Constitution?

For every issue that’s important to me, the answer is VOTE REPUBLICAN!

Originally posted by NEWireless
Forget the candidates…

Who's going to let you keep more of what you earn?

Yet drive up state and property taxes because the states have more unfunded mandates. Also consider the cost to you of decreased social benefits/services.

Originally posted by NEWireless
Who is more likely to take the necessary steps to fight terrorism?

In some areas, yes. In others, they will just create more to fight against.

Originally posted by NEWireless
Who is going to do more to protect you from violent criminals??

Maybe, maybe not. However, there will be more destructive weapons for them to have. In addition, since they don't believe in assisting widespread contraception and trying to improve the inner cities, there will be plenty more in the future to incarcerate

Originally posted by NEWireless
Who is going to make educators think that if they don’t effectively educate there might actually be repercussions???

Agree that the teacher unions mostly do harm to education (as I believe most unions do in the industries they exist). However, I think vouchers will screw the kids with ingorant or bad parents.

Originally posted by NEWireless
Who is going to appoint judges who will uphold the Constitution????

Whose view of the constitution? Of course, those consititutional rights don't include the first amendment!

Originally posted by NEWireless
For every issue that’s important to me, the answer is VOTE REPUBLICAN!

On some, the answer is yes. However on most, its no!

You took the bait again!

Well put.

Vince

Subject: Resume of George W. Bush The White House, USA

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

LAW ENFORCEMENT:
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.


MILITARY:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to
take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By
joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.


COLLEGE:
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a
cheerleader.


PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.

I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I
bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The
company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.

With the help of my father and our right-wing friends in the oil
industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.


ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.

During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.

I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.

With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.


ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any
12-month period.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the
U.S. stock market.

In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any
administration in U.S. history.

My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S.
President.

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history, Enron.

My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against
investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any
President in U.S. history.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.

I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S.
history.

I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations
remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election
inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).

I set the record for fewest number of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.

I set the the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period.

After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to
simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked,
pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in war time.

In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends.

I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans
(71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.

I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to justice.


RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.

All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my
bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President,
attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

:D :D :D

Originally posted by Hayseed
Whos said we should get out? I said only that we had no business going in. We can't get out now. It would be irresponsible and the height of hypocracy. But it was shameless adventurism to go in.

As for Bush...never said I hated him. He'd probably make a great neighbor. I just don't want him as my president. He ain't too bright and he surrounds himself by very smart and very dangerous right wing lunatics who have more than their share of power.

Sorry, hayseed, only part of that response was meant for you. I shouldn't have responded to others' comments in a post that quoted you only. I'll try to be more careful next time :)

I'm not going to play this game. You will lose. Bush will win. Plain and simple. Too effing bad for you!

It's easy to attack people and personalities. To me it’s not a personality contest.

I want less government. I would rather pay my taxes locally and have less federal bureaucracy and better accountability for spending. I would rather have a flat-tax with no deductions and eliminate 90% of the IRS, and reduce all the associated accounting expenditures by people trying to figure out and beat the system.

Ignore what candidates say to get elected, and look at historically what the party has done.

It’s easy to “hate”, it’s a lot harder to think about how to improve the system.

What’s important to you?

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
I'm not going to play this game. You will lose. Bush will win. Plain and simple. Too effing bad for you!
I get that a lot!

Vince

Since you're big on correcting people, careful with your use of the word "regress." I think you mean "digress". Nope, sorry, I meant regress. In order for me to digress I would have had to digress from something. But since I used it in conjunction in the beginning of a statement, it is regress.


I get that allot!

Vince

Don't you mean A LOT, not ALLOT. Is this the education factor of gun toting democrats? No wonder all you dems want more spening on education. Vince you are very good at ignoring the discussion and try to make one liners. To me you are completely ignorant about this issue.

Typo....spenDing.

This thread makes me sick to my stomack ... as the vast majority of political threads do.

It makes me sick to see how brainwashed the masses have become. You're all so dependant on Govt. OMG, what would I do without the Govt to watch over me at night! Fact is, the Patriot Act was the biggest erosion of civil liberties and freedoms this country has ever witnessed, and not a single mention of what we're going to do to protect the very principles this country was founded on.

Dems and Repubs, it doesn't matter. They're all onboard with the same agenda. I'll vote for whoever vows to fight the Patriot Act ... if anybody has the balls to make that stance.

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
Nope, sorry, I meant regress. In order for me to digress I would have had to digress from something. But since I used it in conjunction in the beginning of a statement, it is regress.




Don't you mean A LOT, not ALLOT. Is this the education factor of gun toting democrats? No wonder all you dems want more spening on education. Vince you are very good at ignoring the discussion and try to make one liners. To me you are completely ignorant about this issue.

All fixed.

You still did not answer my questions.

Did you not think I would notice?

I think I gave you a great opportunity to show off your intellect and show me what a great thinker you are.

Here is your challenge:

Tell me three good things that he has done for our nation since taking office (and don't paraphrase).

I want clear cut things that are hard to argue against."

Do you understand?


Vince

Originally posted by compaddict
Is it so hard for your little pea brain to think of three things?

Is it so hard for you to comprehend the rules? Do not attack someone personally ... consider this an official warning. Any more, and it's liberal banning time! WOOHOO!

All better!

Vince

Originally posted by BOOSTD 7
This thread makes me sick to my stomack ... as the vast majority of political threads do.

It makes me sick to see how brainwashed the masses have become. You're all so dependant on Govt. OMG, what would I do without the Govt to watch over me at night! Fact is, the Patriot Act was the biggest erosion of civil liberties and freedoms this country has ever witnessed, and not a single mention of what we're going to do to protect the very principles this country was founded on.

Dems and Repubs, it doesn't matter. They're all onboard with the same agenda. I'll vote for whoever vows to fight the Patriot Act ... if anybody has the balls to make that stance.

Maybe we should go back to the barbarian days do away with goverment all together! .:p Don't ban me as I'm just kidding. :p

Seriously, if you are really against the erosion of personal freedoms, Bush is NOT your man with Ashcroft as attorney general.

Originally posted by NEWireless
It's easy to attack people and personalities. To me it’s not a personality contest.

I want less government. I would rather pay my taxes locally and have less federal bureaucracy and better accountability for spending. I would rather have a flat-tax with no deductions and eliminate 90% of the IRS, and reduce all the associated accounting expenditures by people trying to figure out and beat the system.

Ignore what candidates say to get elected, and look at historically what the party has done.

It’s easy to “hate”, it’s a lot harder to think about how to improve the system.

What’s important to you?

Hey, great post. I want smaller goverment too as I'm not a bleeding heart liberal and sure don't believe in Keynesian Economics.

The problem is the the biggest sources of goverment spending are: defense and entitlements (i.e. social security, medicare, and medicaid).

Defense is a can of worms so I'll leave that alone. However, simply raising the retirement ages for Social Security and Medicare would save tons of money. The life expectancy of americans has increased significantly since then and the eligibility requirements should increase along with that. Unfortunately, you have left wing and senior citizen panderers that want to do nothing and demogouge the issue. This is one of the reasons I would NEVER vote for Gephardt.

However, with the just passed prescription drug bill, a great cost savings was lost by not allowing the group (i.e. bulk) buying of drugs by the goverment or some other large entity. This would increase the power of the buyer and force the pharmacutical companies to sell at lower prices - which is quite realistic since their profit margins (affected in part by subsidization in other areas such as research) are huge as a whole. Of course, this may be a good time for me to pick some of those stocks up. :)

Originally posted by revhappy
Seriously, if you are really against the erosion of personal freedoms, Bush is NOT your man with Ashcroft as attorney general.

Name one politician that is.

Originally posted by BOOSTD 7
Name one politician that is.

Well, I'm sure the Libertarian candidate it is (who as no chance of winning). However, most of the democrats are for repealing parts of the "Patriot" Act, which is better than the current situation based on your views.

Originally posted by revhappy
However, most of the democrats are for repealing parts of the "Patriot" Act, which is better than the current situation based on your views.

Please ... they all voted for it, except for Kucinich. And he's a complete whacko. He wants to create a Dept of Peace to encourage frollicking through meadows of panzies. Not to mention all the other tree-huging liberal horse shit he wants to put in place.

I don't like where Bush is leading this country though. That I will say for sure. However, I'd give my vote to a conservative with no chance of winning before commiting moral suicide and voting for a liberal.

"committing moral suicide"?

Show me three good "moral" differences between conservatives and liberals.

Vince

Originally posted by BOOSTD 7
Please ... they all voted for it, except for Kucinich. And he's a complete whacko. He wants to create a Dept of Peace to encourage frollicking through meadows of panzies. Not to mention all the other tree-huging liberal horse shit he wants to put in place.

I don't like where Bush is leading this country though. That I will say for sure. However, I'd give my vote to a conservative with no chance of winning before commiting moral suicide and voting for a liberal.

So you are basically throwing away your vote and allowing more provisions of te bill you despise to remain.

Stop making sense!

Vince

Originally posted by compaddict
Stop making sense!

Vince

I wish you'd say something that makes sense. So far in this thread you've said nothing other than agree with other liberals and blindly oppose any conservative thinking. Saying repeatedly "show me something", meanwhile yourself showing or saying nothing. And big shocker, you're from the Republik of CA.

Originally posted by Aratinga
AND -- Wes Clark drives a Miata!

:cool: that's good enough for me :p

Originally posted by wakeech
:cool: that's good enough for me :p

Me too! Dang, that was easy. Next question! :p

Originally posted by BOOSTD 7
I wish you'd say something that makes sense. So far in this thread you've said nothing other than agree with other liberals and blindly oppose any conservative thinking. Saying repeatedly "show me something", meanwhile yourself showing or saying nothing. And big shocker, you're from the Republik of CA.
So why don't you rise above it all and answer my question?

It seems that the most boisterous people that call themselves "conservative" never do answer hard questions.

Vince

Originally posted by BOOSTD 7
Please ... they all voted for it, except for Kucinich.


Clark, Dean, Braun and Sharpton - none of them voted for it. They're not in congress.

Infidels.. all this talk of Republican this and Democrat that. These politicans are the untrainable, unemployable and are out for personal power... And every four years around election time this age old debate rears it's ugly head... There is NO difference between Republicans and Democrats... My Camel needs a drink.

Clarke, Dean, Braun, Sharpton ... you could not make this up. Let's see.. Bill has a place for each one in the *new* Clinton administration

I just thought people should read all the enlightening ideas and discussion Compaddict aka Vince has brought to the table in this thread. Enjoy...

Lying jagoffs? So does that make you for or against Bush?

Vince

I hate GWB and most everything he stands for. For those that feel I'm wrong, hear is a different challenge:

Tell me three good things that he has done for our nation since taking office (and don't paraphrase).

I want clear cut things that are hard to argue against.

Good luck.


Vince

Sure got quiet around here!

All the loud Bushies can't think of three good things in there own words?

Whatcha waiting for? The latest crap on FOX news or Rush's Monday load of bile?

I know it's the part of having to think for yourself that made you all quiet!

Vince

Goldenhue22:

"Tell me three good things that he has done for our nation since taking office (and don't paraphrase).

I want clear cut things that are hard to argue against."

Did I stutter? You haven't met any of the criteria of my challenge, please try again.

And do you think I should have capitalized "THEIR" also?

Vince

Revhappy:

The problem with trying to answer the nutso-right propaganda is that while it is very easy to do it detracts from the original question.

Vince

I've been trying the "three good things" approach with great success.

I used to start off with "I'll name three good things that Clinton did..." but I found I was just giving ammunition and creating a bridge getting away from what I wanted.

The new way is simple and put the ball in their court.

Have fun!

Vince
(A gun toting liberal Democrat)

You took the bait again!

Well put.

Vince

I get that a lot!

Vince

All fixed.

You still did not answer my questions.

Did you not think I would notice?

I think I gave you a great opportunity to show off your intellect and show me what a great thinker you are.

Here is your challenge:

Tell me three good things that he has done for our nation since taking office (and don't paraphrase).

I want clear cut things that are hard to argue against."

Do you understand?


Vince

All better!

Vince

"committing moral suicide"?

Show me three good "moral" differences between conservatives and liberals.

Vince

Stop making sense!

Vince

So why don't you rise above it all and answer my question?

It seems that the most boisterous people that call themselves "conservative" never do answer hard questions.

Vince

Why do you even post on this thread?

And BOOSTD why do want no government? This society needs government. Government is the only thing that separates this country from the rest of the mess in the world (i.e. Middle East (minus Isreal), N. Korea, Cuba etc...). It would be like a country without a governing force. There would be complete and utter chaos. If you are a true law abiding citizen, then what do you care? For example, because of the terrorists cells in the US, the government was talking about tapping lines and listening into prospective terrorists living amoung us. I say GOOD FOR THEM! Why not? Because it violates civil liberties? In this case, screw civil liberties and screw the ACL while you are at it. The ACL is the single worst organization in the US. But I DIGRESS- if we let terrorists run rampid in this country people (perhaps any of you) won't have to worry about your civil liberties being dismissed, because you won't be alive to have them.

To me the single most important issue is foreign policy and terrorist containment. And on that issue this president has been flawless. I do agree that this office spends too much. I will concede that. The prescription drug plan bill he just passed, makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't help anyone. It is a political ploy to steal a democratic issue for the upcoming election. And they wasted more money for political gain and with that I'm not happy. However, I like the way this country is handling the war on terror, tax cuts and foreign policy. If Bush is not re-elected anyone...ANYONE...who takes office will RAISE taxes, diminish foreign policy and halt the war on terror. But they will try to change Social Security so 80 year olds have $10 more a month.

Bush may not be the countries best president ever (that goes to Reagan :-) ) but he is the best man for the jobs on the issues that matter the most to me.

I like "Doubleyuh"...(W)

Goldenhue22:

YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED ANY OF MY QUESTIONS!

This is your opportunity to rise above it all and all you have to do is answer my very simple questions.

If you can't answer I do understand!

Vince

Add another one great post by THE Compaddict! Vince, I've already answered your stupid question. Try reading some of the responses and you'll see a lot of us Bush faithfuls have answered your questions. If you don't agree with it, fine. But don't try to play dumb and acknowledge the responses. Otherwise, I wish someone would just cut Vince off from this thread.

BILL O'REILLY IN 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
And BOOSTD why do want no government?

Where did I say that? What I said is that all the career politicians share the same agenda, which is control of the masses. Make people more dependant on Govt, or at least convince them they are. Soon we'll all have identification chips implanted in the back of our neck. Think that's ridiculous? Then why are they already doing that in quite a few Western European countries? Of course, it's voluntary right now ... but soon it'll be mandatory. I'd guess that within 3 years we'll have an electronic id card system here in the US. And of course, it's all under the guise of 'fighting terrorism'.

Ture you didn't say you didn't want a governement, I was just paraphrasing. But you know what, even if we all had an ID chip placed in our necks or wrists, with all the strange and f*cked up people out there, I wouldn't mind becuase I know that I am on the straight and arrow. It's not like they will knock on your door while you are having sex with the wife. But if commit murder or rape or rob a house, maybe, just maybe you couldn't hide...

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
BILL O'REILLY IN 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

I actually like Bill. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's pretty fair and is not a cheelrleader like Limbaugh.

Hey Vince,

I Usually have to go over to DU to get good shot of Liberal Mania.

For those who don't know DU= Demacratic Underground.com = hilarious stuff.

BTW Vince.....what is your handle on DU you must be a regular there.

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
Ture you didn't say you didn't want a governement, I was just paraphrasing. But you know what, even if we all had an ID chip placed in our necks or wrists, with all the strange and f*cked up people out there, I wouldn't mind becuase I know that I am on the straight and arrow. It's not like they will knock on your door while you are having sex with the wife. But if commit murder or rape or rob a house, maybe, just maybe you couldn't hide...

That is a disgustingly un-American sentiment. How about we take turns urinating on the Constitution while we're at it?

Hey I am a member of DU (Ducks Unlimited)! Does that count?


Vince

That is a disgustingly un-American sentiment. How about we take turns urinating on the Constitution while we're at it? I beg to differ. The Constitution while it holds the grounds to what this country was founded on, it is outdated and times are different. The Constitution doesn't need to be changed, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to update it. If the Constitution was written in today's environment, would it be any different? What could be changed for the better? Could anything be changed for the better? I don't know the answers to these questions, it is just food for thought.

The rules that the Constitution are based on come from rights given to us by God ... not by the Government or the times. If you disagree, then you've lost any touch with what this country was founded upon.

And thus I'm Un-American...yeah I know.

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
And thus I'm Un-American...yeah I know.

???

Originally posted by BOOSTD 7
That is a disgustingly un-American sentiment. How about we take turns urinating on the Constitution while we're at it?
That's a great idea, I put my name down to do it in January, but there are people who claim they've being invited to take their turn next week and they didn't sign up until August, some claim to have done it already but I haven't seen any evidence. (I think Mazda are organising it).

So your constitution was written when? couple of hundred years ago? and it was perfect, and no one was to tamper with it. Apart from the first amendment of course, oh and the second, third... how many are you up to now? and when was the last one? Was that because it was finished, or just because someone decided it was had become a sacred text, to be used in theological-like discussions rather than a practical piece of legislation. Is your electoral college in there or somewhere else? you could start with that and move towards democracy.

The Constitution is a sacred text. The principles it was founded upon come from God. You know, the one thing that's a constant in this Universe ... it doesn't change with the latest Gallop poll results.

And if you want to live in a country that has a foundation based on a Godless, athiest set of principles, head to China ... anywhere but here.

Argue all you want, but that's the sole reason why this country was built in the first place. A belief that a higher power decided the rights given to Man at birth. And that NO Govt could take those away.

Hmmm ... just noticed you were from the UK. Another reason why this country was founded. To get away from the tryany of a Govt that assigned freedoms to those who it decided.

Originally posted by BOOSTD 7
The Constitution is a sacred text. The principles it was founded upon come from God. You know, the one thing that's a constant in this Universe ... it doesn't change with the latest Gallop poll results.
.

I do not agree. The American Constitution is one of the most remarkable texts ever written by humans. To call it a sacred text goes to far, it is not the word of God like the Bible. The constitution was inspired by the French philosopher Montesquieu and the Englishman John Locke. Its main origins lie in centuries of experience in government. Its roots are deep in the past from before the days of Magna Carta. The constitution was definitely influenced by religion, but it has it weaknesses, and God has no weakness. Therefore it can not be sacred.

Originally posted by sheylen
I do not agree. The American Constitution is one of the most remarkable texts ever written by humans. To call it a sacred text goes to far, it is not the word of God like the Bible. The constitution was inspired by the French philosopher Montesquieu and the Englishman John Locke. Its main origins lie in centuries of experience in government. Its roots are deep in the past from before the days of Magna Carta. The constitution was definitely influenced by religion, but it has it weaknesses, and God has no weakness. Therefore it can not be sacred.

Hey, I have an idea ... let's over-analyze what said. Who wants to go first?

It's not 'sacred', but the core set of freedoms it's based upon cannot be questioned, unless you're Athiest and believe God does not give everyone a set of core indelible rights and freedoms.

Originally posted by BOOSTD 7
It's not 'sacred', but the core set of freedoms it's based upon cannot be questioned, unless you're Athiest and believe God does not give everyone a set of core indelible rights and freedoms.

Ok with that.:cool:

Winning the war on terror
Got rid of Saddam Hussein
Re-building economy (despite 9/11 and NASDAQ tanking under Clinton)

All the Dems in race are second rate wannabes who pander to whatever group they're speaking to

At this point the Dems are a fractured group of crybabies who can't believe they've lost the lock on power they've had for so many years. Not a single leader among them.

Last, Wesley Clark, are you kidding? Do we want a guy who was fired from his former position? A guy who the other generals wouldn't vote for for reasons of integrity? A guy who publicly and wholeheartedly suppoerted the current administration and has suddenly flip-flopped?

By the way, education has nothing to do with principles and leadership -- Clinton and Gore had both in spades yet have neither of those qualities...

Now back to cars -- RX-8 rules! OF course here in California, the dems would love to take away our right to drive beautiful fast cars!

Originally posted by viggen
Winning the war on terror
Got rid of Saddam Hussein
Re-building economy (despite 9/11 and NASDAQ tanking under Clinton)

All the Dems in race are second rate wannabes who pander to whatever group they're speaking to

At this point the Dems are a fractured group of crybabies who can't believe they've lost the lock on power they've had for so many years. Not a single leader among them.

Last, Wesley Clark, are you kidding? Do we want a guy who was fired from his former position? A guy who the other generals wouldn't vote for for reasons of integrity? A guy who publicly and wholeheartedly suppoerted the current administration and has suddenly flip-flopped?

By the way, education has nothing to do with principles and leadership -- Clinton and Gore had both in spades yet have neither of those qualities...

Now back to cars -- RX-8 rules! OF course here in California, the dems would love to take away our right to drive beautiful fast cars!

Hi Viggen,
Please see my post early on in the thread. All of your points were adressed by me there.

Welcome to the United States. Vote your conscience. Vote how you want to vote. There needn't be any undue hostility between groups anyway - everyone gets their opinion. If things aren't the way you want them to be, then run for office yourself (25 yrs old to be a congressman, 35 to be a senator/VP/Pres). Otherwise, be satisfied with casting your vote and knowing that if you're not actively taking part in the solution then you're not helping fix whatever problem you perceive.

In the meantime, I'll continue perusing the various other portions of the board that actually pertain to this wonderful new automotive achievement. FWIW, my wife is happy to just have me home to spend time with after multiple extended deployments as "an instrument of foreign policy" by both Democrats and Republicans alike (and even independents).

Overworked, underequipped and unnoticed until something happens in the world - then it's down to overworked and underequipped. We chose the life we lead to look out for everyone else, and we enjoy it.

No responses required or desired, so don't feel the need to comment - it's just food for thought. Enjoy your freedoms in your democratic republic - I'm going to go read about cars now. :)

AL Sharpton, you got to be #$%$#%$ kidding me LMFAO

If the choice was G.W.B. or A.S... Without hesitation A.S.

Vince

GOT BUSH!?!?

Dick Gephart has quit the race and has probably ended his political carreer. Joe Lieberman? while i think he is a nice guy he could never win a presidency period. i was surprised by Kerry's showing in the caucases. but really folks i dont see a single Democrat that has a chance in hell.

Originally posted by Jeff_pap31s
GOT BUSH!?!?

I wish... :D

Obviously people don't know who they voted for and who they are going to vote for. Here some additional information on what Bush has done to the freedom in the US:

The actions of the government have been shrouded in a cloak of secrecy that is incompatible with democratic government. Hundreds of non-citizens have been rounded up and detained, many for months, in violation of constitutional protections, judicial decisional authority and INS policy. The government has repeatedly resisted requests for information regarding the detainees by loved ones, lawyers and the press; it has denied detainees access to legal representatives; and has conducted its hearings in secret, in some cases denying the very existence of such hearings. In a democracy, the actions of the government must be transparent or our ability to vote on policies and the people who create those policies becomes meaningless.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the government's actions has been its attack on the Bill of Rights, the very cornerstone of our American democracy. The War on Terror has seriously compromised the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of citizens and non-citizens alike. From the USA PATRIOT Act's over-broad definition of domestic terrorism, to the FBI's new powers of search and surveillance, to the indefinite detention of both citizens and non-citizens without formal charges, the principles of free speech, due process, and equal protection under the law have been seriously undermined.

Finally, the United States' actions with regard to prisoners held at Camp Delta at the Guantanamo Bay naval station have been in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. These prisoners are being held as "unlawful combatants," a term that has no meaning in international law. The government's disregard for international law can only serve to encourage other nations to act likewise and undermine the very War on Terrorism it seeks to fight.

The result of all of these actions has been the deliberate, persistent, and unnecssary erosion of the basic rights that protect every citizen and non-citizen in the United States. A free society demands the rule of law. Without it, democracy is meaningless. The government has consistently refused to recognize the protections afforded by the US Constitution and international law, and in doing so, it has failed in its responsibility to maintain a democratic society that is both open to, and accountable to, the people.

The United Nations must intervene and free the people of the United States.

Just curious, qberror, if you live in Germany why are you so interested in US domestic politics?

Originally posted by Goldenhue22
So Bush's running mate will be Condoleezza Rice (who I love...not literally but...). An african american, female as a VP?!?! Wow, Bush will win in a landslide with 66% of the vote.
Bush couldn't even get 1/2 of the votes against Gore. You really think he'll get 2/3 with a female running mate? You obviously live in a different world than I do.