Is George Bush the right leader for America?

[Marye]

Maybe, Haggis, but he did say this though.

"Too many OBGYN's aren't able to practice their love of women across this country."

<Yuk icon>

[OperaTenor]

<small>[ 11-17-2005, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Shapley]

Haggis,

I was going to comment about "Scrappleface" as a parody, but you beat me to it. I particularly liked the one about the "atrocities" committed by Bush during the weekend training exercises.

Some of the comments posted by Nicole by Bush were said in jest, as well. The one about the item being budget because it had a "bunch of numbers" was one of them.

Bush bashers have no sense of humour.

V/R
Shapley

[Marye]

Originally posted by Shapley:

Bush bashers have no sense of humour.

V/R
Shapley

Ooh but I think they do.... where would late night TV be without him.

[shostakovich]

Posted by Serenity:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you place a chimpanzee in the White House, would the country stop functioning?
------------------------------------------------------

I voted for a chump against Bush in 2000. This year a chimp would do.
Shos

[Nicole Marie]

We do have a sense of humor Shap. We are just tired of his crap and need something to laugh at. Idiots with power always make the best targets.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Originally posted by Nicole Marie:
Idiots with power always make the best targets.

Yup. Or even politicians in general.

Here's an alternate ticket. Bill Cosby for pres, Jeff Foxworthy for vp. They're both acquainted with the real world, and have a sufficient respect for the political process. Both are bright enough to talk for an hour without using a swear word. Neither one is a professional politician.

How about it? Do we have a write-in slate?

(If we don't I'll have to vote for Bush, because Kerry gives me the cold slimy shivers.)

[OperaTenor]

<small>[ 11-17-2005, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Shapley]

Nicole:

RE: Saxy- If Bush wanted to strenghten the US militray he would leave our bases in Korea and Germany. We are much more mobile and able to react quicker when we have forces in a larger area.

President Bush was accused of harbouring a "cold war mentality", yet when he proposes undoing these remnants of the cold war, he is accused of weakening the military.

WWI has been over for nearly 60 years, the Soviet Union has been gone for over a decade. Isn't it time to rethink the need for a large presence in Europe? Don't the Europeans want to shape their own destiny? Can't we maintain an effective presence in the Eurasian Continent without a cold war occupation force?

The Korean situation is a bit trickier. North Korea has not given up its designs on the lower part of the peninsula. However, the acquisition of a nuclear arsenal by the North has changed the situation over there, and the strategy has to be re-evaluated. Also, the collapse of the Soviet Union puts North Korea on its own should it attempt the conquest. Our presence there had more to do with Soviet aggression than the two Korea's own civil war, and that aggression has waned.

Incidentally, John Kerry has, in the past, proposed reducing our forces in Korea and Europe. Of course, this was before he was running for president, and before it was proposed by President Bush.

V/R
Shapley

[RC]

Hurricane Ivan is currently the strongest hurricane on record with 165mph sustained winds gusting to 195 mph .

It is forecast to make landfall on Cuba Sunday.

It occured to me that we are holding those prisoners at Guatanemo with very little shelter.

I wonder if Bush is considering what to do with them or is planning on letting them blow away without a trial.

[Marye]

Holy Jumpin!!! RC.... you are right...
Goodbye Guatanemo

[haggis]

Piq,

” I'll be surprised if he gets your predicted margin tho.”

Well, since I’m already out on a limb I’ll just pull up that handy chain saw and expand on my prediction.

In 1972, The New Yorker's movie critic, Pauline Kael, won herself a place in political lore by expressing astonishment at the Republicans' 49-state landslide victory. "How could that be?" she demanded. "I don't know a single person who voted for Nixon."

Despite the polls, I don't think this election will be close, and this time the Democratic establishment won't be able to blame the Supreme Court. If they're fair, they'll blame themselves, but since this is politics, they'll blame the candidate.

Since this year began some of the most prominent Democrats and ostensibly responsible organizations have called President Bush a moron, a liar, a traitor, a fraud, a deserter, an agent of the House of Saud, a mass murderer, a mass rapist (according to the speaker at a National Organization for Women rally during the Republican Convention) and the new Hitler (according to just about everyone).

In addition, the mainstream media have come out so strongly and so viciously partisan against President Bush I don’t see them regaining the trust of a majority of American people for the remainder of this decade, possibly longer.

According to Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek, on Inside Washington in mid July 2004.

”There's one other base here, the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points.”

And despite that the liar, fraud, et al is still ahead in the polls from 7 – 12 points, depending on which poll you like best.

John Kerry is not a bad man. He probably wouldn't make a bad President. But he is a bad candidate in a terrible situation. He represents the wing of the Democratic Party that is imbued with a sense of its own moral, intellectual, cultural and social superiority. In short, he is the standard bearer for the unbearable.

The Republican Party’s backbone is formed by the small businessmen and "sole proprietors" (barbers, shopkeepers, plumbers, etc.) of the American heartland.

That is why, under the leadership of George W. Bush, the Republicans have gained control of not only the White House, but also the Senate, the House of Representatives, 29 of the 50 governorships, and (for the first time in ages) a majority of the legislators in the fifty states.

Kerry now has 53 days to convince voters that a Bush victory in November would be, as his wife put it in Milwaukee on Monday, "four more years of hell."

The problem is, most Americans don't regard their lives as "hell" or Bush as Satan. The economy is doing pretty well. Unemployment is 5.4%, lower than in 1996 when Clinton bragged that he had reduced unemployment to 5.6%

Iraq isn't Vietnam, and won't be unless there's a draft.

The Islamic jihad against America isn't Bush's fault, either. A candidate who insists otherwise is bound to strike voters as detached from reality.

Kerry ought to know this, and he may. But his party is dominated, as it was in 1972, by people who talk only to one another and who are convinced that everybody despises Bush. They will judge Kerry by how hard he goes after the Crawford Beelzebub.

Kerry is a weak campaigner. Barring some kind of national disaster, his best shot is the debates. Democratic true believers think he'll kill Bush, one on one. That's what they thought about Al Gore, too.

Calling a presidential race in September is risky, especially a race that's supposedly close. But no guts, no glory. Bush will beat Kerry in a walk. 55% of the popular vote or better. And a minimum of 285 Electoral College votes.

If I'm right, you read it here first. If not, you can justifiably hurl jeers, insults, and embarrassing remarks at me.

Even Pauline Kael got it wrong once in a while.

[dai bread]

I think you're right, Haggis. Unfortunately.

[Nicole Marie]

Haggis, not everyone is doing so well under Bush. War, job loss, crap tax breaks, 17% increase to Medicare, failing Social Security, national debt, no national health care, loss of assist funding for women and health clinics... the list goes on. He tried, he failed... next.

You are right about the coming days. Kerry is no longer talking about his past. He has done a 180 and is talking about what he will do in office. One thing he said that impressed me is the first thing he will do (within 24 hours of taking office) is put forth legislation for national health care. (If it passes is another story.) But it's more then Bush has done.

Bush talks about what he believes, his faith, his plan but what has he really done these past four years? Iraq. National debt. Failing education system. Faith based programs that even have the faithful ticked off. Failed constitutional amendment. Yeah, he's done really well... next in line please.

[Serenity]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
I think Serenity's right - vote Badnarik.

(Uh, how do you pronounce his name?)

From the short biography on his website, the pronunciation is: the first a as in "ago", the second a as in "car", i as in "is".

http://www.badnarik.org/bio.php

[Serenity]

Kerry's weak too. He was absent a lot and therefore didn't vote on many issues. You can see votes on current issues and how government representatives voted by clicking on an issue and then the state. Kerry usually ends up as "Not Voting".

http://capwiz.com/y/issues/votes/

[haggis]

"Bush talks about what he believes, his faith, his plan but what has he really done these past four years? Iraq. National debt. Failing education system. Faith based programs that even have the faithful ticked off. Failed constitutional amendment. Yeah, he's done really well... next in line please.

Nicole,

Everything you said is incorrect.

Pres. Bush has spent (much to my dismay) more money on education and social programs than any other president in America's history.

You have been either wrong and out of context in every claim you have ever made.

You haven’t been picked up based on your claims that the Patriot Act is tyranny personified (sorry, I knew you wanted to be, but buck up, I'm sure there's a cell in Gitmo with your name on it)

You were wrong about the deficit, and didn't admit it.

You are wrong about education spending and grade standards, and won't admit it,

and you are on the wrong side of history, and don't know it.

The main difference between us that I can tell is that I don't believe in name calling and personal attacks on candidates while you seem to depend on them to make your point.

I think the candidates are honorable Americans who love America.


Want a challenge?

Find one major Republican who has attackd John Kerry personally, and please, 527s are off limits simply because the rebuttals would bury you.

Next frothy mouth claim, please

<small>[ 09-09-2004, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Haggis ]</small>

[Serenity]

Originally posted by Serenity:
If you place a chimpanzee in the White House, would the country stop functioning?

Can you believe this?
http://www.bushorchimp.com

[monkeymd2b]

I love it! Multiple photos to serve as evidence of evolution and our relatives. I've seen many of those before but all together it's even funnier! Though the photo of him holding his twins is probably the least monkey like.

Wait, should I be offended that this man is being compared to monkeys?

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Naaah. Clearly, all of us primates are closer kin than some of us want to admit.
I'm sure the apes don't mind.