If you could, would you vote for George Bush?

[FirstSunday33ad]

If it were possible and Bush were able to run for a third term, would you vote for him?

[Trout]

If it were possible and Bush were able to run for a third term, would you vote for him?

Who's he running against?

[FirstSunday33ad]

Who's he running against?

Hey Crabman.....

Bill Clinton and Al Gore (the dynamic duo)

[FirstSunday33ad]

We have one person out there who would vote for Bush although they didn't or couldn't the last time.

I wish this person would tell us why?

[Zeluvia]

I would vote for Stephen Colbert

[Storico]

I would vote for Stephen Colbert

:lol: If I were American, I'd totally go for him. He's great. Did you see that segment with the pens? :hehe:

[FirstSunday33ad]

Two people would still vote for Bush.

I should have asked - "are you a YEC?" as well

[Crow]

If the alternative was Algore or either of the Clintons, I'd vote for him again despite my disappointment in some aspects of his performance.

Oh, I'm TE, not YEC.

I would vote for Bush if he ran against some people, I wouldn't vote for him if someone I felt would do the job better was running against him, and that's true of any candidate.

[FirstSunday33ad]

If the alternative was Algore or either of the Clintons, I'd vote for him again despite my disappointment in some aspects of his performance.

Oh, I'm TE, not YEC.

I would vote for Bush if he ran against some people, I wouldn't vote for him if someone I felt would do the job better was running against him, and that's true of any candidate.

You would choose BUSH/CHENEY over CLINTON/GORE based on the comparative records???

Okay, so what did Clinton/Gore do that was so much more worse than what Bush/Cheney have accomplished because I can't think of anything that could come close to the disaster of the B/C debacle.

I really have to ask this again because your reply so defies logic and common sense that I think it borders on some form of delusional thinking. Let’s update the candidates – H. Clinton/Obama; What is in this team that would cause you to choose the Bush / Cheney team over them? If you look at the B/C record – sleeping at the switch prior to 9/11, letting bin Laden escape, not finishing the job in Afghanistan, attacking a country not involved in terrorism, bungling that invasion, losing the war against terrorism, total disregard for the Katrina disaster, sanctioning torture, alienating friends, enraging enemies, running up HUGE deficits, the plummeting green-back, economic insecurity, - what could C/O possibly do that could be considered so much worse that you would still vote for the B/C ticket?

[Sparko]

bush for dictator for life!

[FirstSunday33ad]

Okay, so now we have three people who despite everything would still vote for Bush.

One person says they didn't or couldn't before but would now, but could probably be put in the "fringe party" slot - the type who would vote for the "Free Guns for Pre-Schoolers" Party.

Anyone got the cajones to say why they would still vote for the BJ and the Bear starring Dick Cheney as BJ and George Bush as his fun-loving sidekick Bear?

[Sparko]

Okay, so now we have three people who despite everything would still vote for Bush.

One person says they didn't or couldn't before but would now, but could probably be put in the "fringe party" slot - the type who would vote for the "Free Guns for Pre-Schoolers" Party.

Anyone got the cajones to say why they would still vote for the BJ and the Bear starring Dick Cheney as BJ and George Bush as his fun-loving sidekick Bear?


because Bush is an excellent president and the democrats only have such strange and creepy candidates like Obama and Hillary.

[Crow]

You would choose BUSH/CHENEY over CLINTON/GORE based on the comparative records???

Okay, so what did Clinton/Gore do that was so much more worse than what Bush/Cheney have accomplished because I can't think of anything that could come close to the disaster of the B/C debacle.




I would chose Bush over Clinton or Gore based upon their ideology. I'd really hate to go down the path to socialism that the Clinton/Gore camp wants to pursue. I'm not happy with the way Bush handles some issues. (Tries to recall any president I was 100% happy with--draws a blank) The main reason I'm displeased with Bush right now is that some of his appointees are as crooked as a dog's hind leg. I also think he was too "controlled" in his approach to war. If you're going to fight a war, fight it all out and full tilt boogie and be done with it. Damn, Viet Nam should have taught us that.

It's got nothing to do with YEC. (Which I'm not) Throwing that into the mix a few posts back was pretty lame, BTW.

[FirstSunday33ad]

because Bush is an excellent president and the democrats only have such strange and creepy candidates like Obama and Hillary.

Okay, what is it that makes him an "excellent" president?

What is it that makes Hillary and Obama "creepy"?

Remember to avoid slogans and Limbaugh sounds bites and avoid using personal descriptions (like, "obama has funny ears" or "Hillary reminds me of my mother in law, etc).

GO!

[Crow]

Remember to avoid slogans and Limbaugh sounds bites and avoid using personal descriptions (like, "obama has funny ears" or "Hillary reminds me of my mother in law, etc).



Or the "Free Guns for Pre-Schoolers Party" or "Dick Cheney as BJ and George Bush as his fun-loving sidekick Bear," or other such idiocies.

[Sparko]

Okay, what is it that makes him an "excellent" president?

What is it that makes Hillary and Obama "creepy"?

Remember to avoid slogans and Limbaugh sounds bites and avoid using personal descriptions (like, "obama has funny ears" or "Hillary reminds me of my mother in law, etc).

GO!

Bush took control when 911 occured and handled it the best way he could which was better than Clinton would have done. In fact the whole congress agreed with his actions, and only now are complaining because elections are coming up. Interest rates for mortgages went down under Bush and just have recently started back up. My paycheck got fatter under Bush. My standard of living is better under Bush than under Clinton. Bush has actual real morals unlike Clinton.

Obama just comes off as fake to me. He just tries to spew out what he thinks you want to hear. He doesn't impress me in the least. He is a stereotypical politician. Hillary creeps me out because she blew off Bill's infidelity so easily and with her in the whitehouse would be way too much like a cheat to get Bill back in office. I think Hillary pretty much ran things the last time too. Perhaps she would have the affair with Monica the next time? who knows. I want my president to be a morally responsible person who respects the office and the public.

[FirstSunday33ad]

I would chose Bush over Clinton or Gore based upon their ideology. I'd really hate to go down the path to socialism that the Clinton/Gore camp wants to pursue. I'm not happy with the way Bush handles some issues. (Tries to recall any president I was 100% happy with--draws a blank)

Okay, first off, Bill Clinton - excellent President that he was - was not a socialist. Trust me, I'm a Socialist and he was never at any of the meetings (seriously, the man is a solid liberal but not a socialist). In case you don’t know the difference; a socialist would bring in public health care, nationalize the power supply, increase and toughen SEC regulations, raise capital gains taxes to 100%, introduce a one-year paternal leave policy, cut the military, pay up UN dues, increase aid to third world nations, raise luxury taxes, expand and raise inheritance taxes, only award government contracts to Union shops, bring in anti-lobby laws, toughen the EPA, start an urban renewal program akin to the Marshall Plan and introduce a whole slew of other programs that Bill Clinton never even thought of.

Secondly - it is not a question of how Bush "handles some issues” it is the fact that he doesn’t handle any issues. The man has zero leadership ability and only manages to make bad situations worse (in fact he has a talent for taking positive situations and turning them into nightmares). So simply stating that you are not 100% happy with Bush – but then no President made you 100% happy – is irrelevant. You must be at least 50% satisfied with the job he is doing and want him to continue doing it. But given that he has failed in every aspect of this presidency where are you finding this 50% to be satisfied with?

YEC - only those so separated from reality and facts can believe in YEC – or continue to support Bush.

[Sparko]

[quote=Crow;2105471]I would chose Bush over Clinton or Gore based upon their ideology. I'd really hate to go down the path to socialism that the Clinton/Gore camp wants to pursue. I'm not happy with the way Bush handles some issues. (Tries to recall any president I was 100% happy with--draws a blank)

Okay, first off, Bill Clinton - excellent President that he was - was not a socialist. Trust me, I'm a Socialist and he was never at any of the meetings (seriously, the man is a solid liberal but not a socialist). In case you don’t know the difference; a socialist would bring in public health care, nationalize the power supply, increase and toughen SEC regulations, raise capital gains taxes to 100%, introduce a one-year paternal leave policy, cut the military, pay up UN dues, increase aid to third world nations, raise luxury taxes, expand and raise inheritance taxes, only award government contracts to Union shops, bring in anti-lobby laws, toughen the EPA, start an urban renewal program akin to the Marshall Plan and introduce a whole slew of other programs that Bill Clinton never even thought of.

Secondly - it is not a question of how Bush "handles some issues” it is the fact that he doesn’t handle any issues. The man has zero leadership ability and only manages to make bad situations worse (in fact he has a talent for taking positive situations and turning them into nightmares). So simply stating that you are not 100% happy with Bush – but then no President made you 100% happy – is irrelevant. You must be at least 50% satisfied with the job he is doing and want him to continue doing it. But given that he has failed in every aspect of this presidency where are you finding this 50% to be satisfied with?

YEC - only those so separated from reality and facts can believe in YEC – or continue to support Bush.

talk about sound bites. you should take your own advice fs33.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Bush took control when 911 occured and handled it the best way he could which was better than Clinton would have done.

No, he didn’t. He sat staring blankly wondering what to do next. Then he waited 30 days before moving against Afghanistan allowing bin Laden to escape. Then, before the job was finished in Afghanistan he expended the good will the US garnered following 9/11 whipping up support to invade Iraq. Since then, he has failed to achieve any of the goals set out post 9/11; bin Laden is still free, Al Qaeda is still active, Afghanistan has not been pacified and Iraq is in the words of a former general “a nightmare without end”.

As to what Clinton would have done; that can only be the subject of conjecture, but the fact is he took bin Laden and Al Qaeda far more seriously than Bush did prior to 9/11.


In fact the whole congress agreed with his actions, and only now are complaining because elections are coming up.

Everybody agreed with his actions – I certainly did and so did everyone I talked to – because he assured the world that Hussein was connected to 9/11, was supporting terrorism and was close to developing a nuclear bomb as well not to mention chemical and biological weapons. We also thought that Iraq would be done competently and was an integral part of the war against terrorism.

People are “complaining” now because four years later Iraq is a mess, terror is a bigger threat than ever before and the reasons for the invasion turned out to be lies.


Interest rates for mortgages went down under Bush and just have recently started back up.

Read up on the credit crises. Those declining mortgage rates have brought the economy to the edge of disaster.


My paycheck got fatter under Bush. My standard of living is better under Bush than under Clinton.

Okay, you have finally said something that is probably closer to reality than the other statements. Bush cut taxes even though it has proven to be disastrous to the budget. Surpluses have evaporated and colossal deficits are back. However, have you stopped to ask what were those taxes paying for? The war in Iraq, policing, disaster relief, the military, the space program, etc, don’t come cheaply. Neither do roads, infrastructure, debt management, tax cuts to corporations, etc, etc.

At some point your taxes are going to have to go back up. In fact it is a pretty good bet that the U.S. will have to introduce a national sales tax on all goods and services as they have in Canada and Britain. Bush eliminated the possibility of future tax cuts by cutting taxes too deeply for too long. You have been given a present short term gain for a future long term pain.

In the meantime, the national debt is shooting through the roof and the greenback is becoming the US peso.


Bush has actual real morals unlike Clinton.

You mean like Bush didn’t drink to excess, use drugs, drive while drunk… oh wait he did.

You mean Bush didn’t lie to the American people….no wait did that too.

You mean Bush didn’t cheat on his wife…well we don’t know if he did or didn’t because he doesn’t have a paid pack scandal mongers chasing his every move.

Perhaps you mean Bush believes in helping those without homes get homes…no that’s Clinton.

Or maybe, Bush believes in inspiring people to believe in possibilities and hope….nope Clinton again.

Oh well, I’m sure somewhere you have something more than blind faith to back up your statement.


Obama just comes off as fake to me. He just tries to spew out what he thinks you want to hear. He doesn't impress me in the least. He is a stereotypical politician. Hillary creeps me out because she blew off Bill's infidelity so easily and with her in the whitehouse would be way too much like a cheat to get Bill back in office. I think Hillary pretty much ran things the last time too. Perhaps she would have the affair with Monica the next time? who knows. I want my president to be a morally responsible person who respects the office and the public.

Well all politicians say what they think people want to hear. Remember Reagan (maybe he was before your time) he was a champion at saying one thing and doing another. Bush Sr with his 1000 points of light was a hoot. When asked what being a “compassionate conservative” meant after he used it in a speech, he admitted he hadn’t a clue, he just read what they had written for him.

Your comments regarding Hillary are funny. If she had divorced Bill, she would have been condemned for not “standing by her man”. She stands by him and is condemned for “taking it too easily”. Given the circumstances and the forces lined up against her husband (including uber-creep Ken Starr) she showed amazing strength of character and an inner steel that shows she isn’t to be taken lightly.

As for being “morally-responsible” – please are you that naïve? The last President who could be said to have been “morally responsible” was Jimmy Carter and I doubt you would support him if he ran against Richard Nixon.

“Morally responsible” is a suit of clothes hauled out every four years. It is cut to fit the current chimp running for office, the flaws and holes are hidden and patched over and it is pinned back so it doesn’t look so ill-fitting. Once the election is over, it is put back into the closet and left to the moths.

Better to want a President who knows what he/she is doing instead.

[FirstSunday33ad]

[quote=FirstSunday33ad;2105492]

talk about sound bites. you should take your own advice fs33.

Uh...that's not a "sound bite". A sound bite is "I'm a uniter not a divider", "feminazi" "cut and run" etc.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Or the "Free Guns for Pre-Schoolers Party" or "Dick Cheney as BJ and George Bush as his fun-loving sidekick Bear," or other such idiocies.

No, you can use those.

[Sparko]

dang this thread is a complete red herring/strawman stew.

FS33 you have really gone off the deep end.

Bush never sat on his hands. For people like you he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't - If he did sit and wait you call him indecisive, if he goes ahead and does something then he is being impulsive and not weighing all the information.

Just admit you hate Bush because he is a rebublican and be done with it.

[Jimmy Higgins]

dang this thread is a complete red herring/strawman stew.

FS33 you have really gone off the deep end.

Bush never sat on his hands. For people like you he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't - If he did sit and wait you call him indecisive, if he goes ahead and does something then he is being impulsive and not weighing all the information.

Just admit you hate Bush because he is a rebublican and be done with it.Hearing this from conservatives just makes me wonder if they were all in comas during the 90s.

That said, Sparko, Bush doesn't have a legacy of anything other than a "war on terror" that has seen an increase of terrorism globally. Social Security solvency (his only plan was to privatize a tiny amount at a huge cost), tax reform, medicare solvency (created a very expensive, non-competitive drug benefit), education reform (just added more tests)... nothing. He's got nothing to show for over 6.5 years in office and that was with over 4 years of majorities in both Houses.

All he has are two uber-conservative judges that make Justice Kennedy look like Karl Marx, the Do-Not-Call list, the huge tax cut, a No-Child-Left Behind Act that is hurting schools. Most of that was early in the first term. All else he has in the war. Which was going terribly until the Dems took both Houses of Congress making Bush change tactics, which has seen a significant drop, at least so far, in soldier and Iraqi deaths.

[TyRockwell]

You would choose BUSH/CHENEY over CLINTON/GORE based on the comparative records???

Okay, so what did Clinton/Gore do that was so much more worse than what Bush/Cheney have accomplished because I can't think of anything that could come close to the disaster of the B/C debacle.

I really have to ask this again because your reply so defies logic and common sense that I think it borders on some form of delusional thinking. Let’s update the candidates – H. Clinton/Obama; What is in this team that would cause you to choose the Bush / Cheney team over them? If you look at the B/C record – sleeping at the switch prior to 9/11, letting bin Laden escape, not finishing the job in Afghanistan, attacking a country not involved in terrorism, bungling that invasion, losing the war against terrorism, total disregard for the Katrina disaster, sanctioning torture, alienating friends, enraging enemies, running up HUGE deficits, the plummeting green-back, economic insecurity, - what could C/O possibly do that could be considered so much worse that you would still vote for the B/C ticket?
You must be getting your news from the mainstream media, or Air america, no difference.

911 happened because Bill Clinton did nothing when he had the chance to get Bin Laden.

Bill Clinton only balanced the budget because the Republicans took over congress in '94. THEY balanced the budget.

All patriotic americans agreed, a few days after 911, that we should go after terrorists wherever they were. We went after them in Afghanistan, they broke and ran. I suppose you think we should have gone back home? The world-wide war on terror is over?

Some people are still all torn up inside because they lost one of the best fiends they ever had, Sadaam Hussien. So what if he wasn't directly in the room where the terrorists planned 911? He funded terrorists. Don't you dare say he did not. That would be a lie from the pit of hell, typical of the usual rants.

He paid $25,000 to the families of every suicide bomber jihadist.

He had broken 17 U.N. resolutions to disarm. He refused U.N. inspectors access to his military. Heck, He WANTED the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction. He got what he deserved, and Iraq's people are not missing him. He was ripping off the U.N. Oil for Food program for millions, if not billions, supporting Himself in the manner to which he had become accustomed.

He allowed bases for Al Qaeda to train in Iraq. Bush/Cheney should be thanked that Al Qaeda in Iraq (their name for themselves) is back in Iraq. They had to go somewhere after they were driven out of Afghanistan.

If the choice was Bush/Cheney or any Demoncrat, pick Bush/Cheney. They are capitalists, thank God. God is a capitalist. He's got a book, you read it? God wants His people to take care of the poor, hurting, sick, and lost. He doesn't want to set up government as Provider Most High. Demoncrats are Socialists, God is into free market entrapenourship. Socialism breaks the Tenth Commandment. You're gonna have to look it up, aren't you?

There's more. I'll save it, though, for after your predictable reply.

[FirstSunday33ad]

You must be getting your news from the mainstream media, or Air america, no difference.

911 happened because Bill Clinton did nothing when he had the chance to get Bin Laden.

Bill Clinton only balanced the budget because the Republicans took over congress in '94. THEY balanced the budget.

All patriotic americans agreed, a few days after 911, that we should go after terrorists wherever they were. We went after them in Afghanistan, they broke and ran. I suppose you think we should have gone back home? The world-wide war on terror is over?

Some people are still all torn up inside because they lost one of the best fiends they ever had, Sadaam Hussien. So what if he wasn't directly in the room where the terrorists planned 911? He funded terrorists. Don't you dare say he did not. That would be a lie from the pit of hell, typical of the usual rants.

He paid $25,000 to the families of every suicide bomber jihadist.

He had broken 17 U.N. resolutions to disarm. He refused U.N. inspectors access to his military. Heck, He WANTED the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction. He got what he deserved, and Iraq's people are not missing him. He was ripping off the U.N. Oil for Food program for millions, if not billions, supporting Himself in the manner to which he had become accustomed.

He allowed bases for Al Qaeda to train in Iraq. Bush/Cheney should be thanked that Al Qaeda in Iraq (their name for themselves) is back in Iraq. They had to go somewhere after they were driven out of Afghanistan.

If the choice was Bush/Cheney or any Demoncrat, pick Bush/Cheney. They are capitalists, thank God. God is a capitalist. He's got a book, you read it? God wants His people to take care of the poor, hurting, sick, and lost. He doesn't want to set up government as Provider Most High. Demoncrats are Socialists, God is into free market entrapenourship. Socialism breaks the Tenth Commandment. You're gonna have to look it up, aren't you?

There's more. I'll save it, though, for after your predictable reply.

At first I thought you were kidding, but then I realized you were very serious and really, truly do believe what you have written.

I admit the temptation to tear your reply apart piece by piece is very strong, but I realize that in your world there is no opposition - there is only GOSPEL (aka your opinion) and DIRTY STINKING SATAN LOVING LIES (aka everybody else's opinion). So I will just let you alone and leave you to believe in unicorns, good fairies, Santa Claus and a capitalist God (that's the one I love the most "God is a capitalist" :lol: :lmbo: )

BTW - Look luck with the "Free Guns for Pre-Schoolers" Party :lol:

[FirstSunday33ad]

dang this thread is a complete red herring/strawman stew.

FS33 you have really gone off the deep end.

Bush never sat on his hands. For people like you he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't - If he did sit and wait you call him indecisive, if he goes ahead and does something then he is being impulsive and not weighing all the information.

Just admit you hate Bush because he is a rebublican and be done with it.

No, you are quite wrong. I supported Bush after 9/11. I wanted him to invade Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya. I wanted him to reinstate the draft, intern Muslim radicals and spy on domestic groups with ties to Mid-East terror groups. I wanted him to isolate and destroy the terror network and arrest or kill the terror leadership. I wanted Bush to fight a war on terror.

Instead, he waited. He waited 30 days before going after bin Laden. He sent too few troops and pulled them out too soon. He went into Iraq a year and half after 9/11 again with too few troops and no mandate to secure and rebuild the country. He ignored bin Laden but crowed that they had "got" Saddam Hussain - as if he were the primary target all along.

After that he did nothing. Troops rotated through Iraq with no clear purpose. They became nothing more than targets for the growing insurgency. Rather than winning over the Iraqi people, the US has so alienated them that even government ministers call for attacks against US troops. North Korea gets the bomb - nothing from Bush. Iran is developing the bomb - nothing from Bush. Syria is developing the bomb - Israel has to go after them because again, nothing from Bush. Bin Laden is free, Pakistan is becoming unstable, the Taliban are a growing threat in Afghanistan - nothing from Bush.

He got the war he wanted - Iraq. He got the enemy he wanted - Saddam Hussain. He doesn't care about anything else. He doesn't care about bin Laden, 9/11, the war on terror or WMD's in the hands of lunatics. He has what he wanted and is happy to go back to Crawford.

And this is only ONE of the problems with his presidency.

[Sparko]

so you think we can just spew out an entire army to go overseas on the spur of the moment? 30 days sounds pretty fast to me. There are a lot of logistics involved in getting an army together and moved. Not to mention all the political red tape to go through.

And again, you damn bush if he does go to war and damn him if he delays going to war. You are just a hatefulled liberal weenie FS33.

[Sparko]

At first I thought you were kidding, but then I realized you were very serious and really, truly do believe what you have written.

I admit the temptation to tear your reply apart piece by piece is very strong, but I realize that in your world there is no opposition - there is only GOSPEL (aka your opinion) and DIRTY STINKING SATAN LOVING LIES (aka everybody else's opinion). So I will just let you alone and leave you to believe in unicorns, good fairies, Santa Claus and a capitalist God (that's the one I love the most "God is a capitalist" :lol: :lmbo: )

BTW - Look luck with the "Free Guns for Pre-Schoolers" Party :lol:

right, You didn't answer him because you realized he was correct. and it seems to me that it is YOU who sees everything as black and white and demonizes anyone who isn't a commie liberal hippie like you.

[TyRockwell]

No, you are quite wrong. I supported Bush after 9/11. I wanted him to invade Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya. I wanted him to reinstate the draft, intern Muslim radicals and spy on domestic groups with ties to Mid-East terror groups. I wanted him to isolate and destroy the terror network and arrest or kill the terror leadership. I wanted Bush to fight a war on terror.

Instead, he waited. He waited 30 days before going after bin Laden. He sent too few troops and pulled them out too soon. He went into Iraq a year and half after 9/11 again with too few troops and no mandate to secure and rebuild the country. He ignored bin Laden but crowed that they had "got" Saddam Hussain - as if he were the primary target all along.

After that he did nothing. Troops rotated through Iraq with no clear purpose. They became nothing more than targets for the growing insurgency. Rather than winning over the Iraqi people, the US has so alienated them that even government ministers call for attacks against US troops. North Korea gets the bomb - nothing from Bush. Iran is developing the bomb - nothing from Bush. Syria is developing the bomb - Israel has to go after them because again, nothing from Bush. Bin Laden is free, Pakistan is becoming unstable, the Taliban are a growing threat in Afghanistan - nothing from Bush.

He got the war he wanted - Iraq. He got the enemy he wanted - Saddam Hussain. He doesn't care about anything else. He doesn't care about bin Laden, 9/11, the war on terror or WMD's in the hands of lunatics. He has what he wanted and is happy to go back to Crawford.

And this is only ONE of the problems with his presidency.
Bush got bad advise at first, from Donald Rumsfeld and the 'police action' minded leftovers who remained in the Pentagon after the good soldiers left because of the military hating Bill Clinton.

Since the surge reached its full strength in June 07, the tide has turned, we are kicking the insurgents' butts. The Iraqi people have come to see that a real military action is not leaving them vulnerable to Coalition departure from cleared areas. They are giving good inteligence, now, and the mostly foreign warriors are being found and crushed.

Bill Clinton gave North Korea the nuclear technology on only a promise from Kim Jong il that they would not develope nuclear bombs. Iran is being threatened with sanctions for their nuclear programs, probably acquired from North Korea, again, thanks to Bill Clinton.

Meanwhile Iran's Revolutionary Gaurd is being confronted as providers of guns and explosives into Iraq, turning up the heat on Ahmadjinedab. Damascus will become a heap of rubble, and no one will live there anymore. See Isaiah 17:1.

Bin Laden is on the run, and crapping in his boots trying to act like he can still manage a terror network while hiding in a hole in the ground under rocks in northwestern Pakistan, where Pakistan's president is beginning to take action.

The Taliban are out of power in Afghanistan, and a stable democracy is in place. All the Taliban can do is make themselves a nuisance from time to time, when they dare to poke their heads up out of Tora Bora.

Bush is taking positive action on all these fronts. He will be vindicated. You ought to get your news from somewhere else than the mainstream media, who never report on the positive developments, and magnify the ever lessening number of ambushes and car bombings. The mainstream media by their own admissions vote 85 to 90% for Demoncratic Socialists, and want Americans to be pursuaded that we can't and aren't winning, hoping that their preferred candidates will, and take us down the road to bigger government, higher taxes, socialized mediocracy, uh, medicine, and the breaking of the Tenth Commandment.

[Dracula Girl]

It depends who is running, but probably not. I'm disillusioned with presidential cadidates. I hope almost every one of them loses. The one I person I would gladly vote for is Ron Paul. I am completely impressed and refreshed by a constitutionalist perpective on government and I have issues with the way that Bush has handled international relations. If it was something like Bush or Hillary, I'll vote third party.

[Longstreet]

Is this a legitimate poll? I mean, are you really interested, or just looking for a place to vent?

[TyRockwell]

Neither Ron Paul, nor any third party has a chance in Hades.

[Dracula Girl]

Neither Ron Paul, nor any third party has a chance in Hades.
I would almost become a Republican for Ron Paul.

[Glenn P]

Hey Crabman.....

Bill Clinton and Al Gore (the dynamic duo)Everyone needs to read that post before they vote.

[TyRockwell]

Okay, first off, Bill Clinton - excellent President that he was - was not a socialist. Trust me, I'm a Socialist and he was never at any of the meetings (seriously, the man is a solid liberal but not a socialist). In case you don’t know the difference; a socialist would bring in public health care, nationalize the power supply, increase and toughen SEC regulations, raise capital gains taxes to 100%, introduce a one-year paternal leave policy, cut the military, pay up UN dues, increase aid to third world nations, raise luxury taxes, expand and raise inheritance taxes, only award government contracts to Union shops, bring in anti-lobby laws, toughen the EPA, start an urban renewal program akin to the Marshall Plan and introduce a whole slew of other programs that Bill Clinton never even thought of.

Secondly - it is not a question of how Bush "handles some issues” it is the fact that he doesn’t handle any issues. The man has zero leadership ability and only manages to make bad situations worse (in fact he has a talent for taking positive situations and turning them into nightmares). So simply stating that you are not 100% happy with Bush – but then no President made you 100% happy – is irrelevant. You must be at least 50% satisfied with the job he is doing and want him to continue doing it. But given that he has failed in every aspect of this presidency where are you finding this 50% to be satisfied with?

YEC - only those so separated from reality and facts can believe in YEC – or continue to support Bush.
50% of the things you said a socialist would do are the things that Hillary, and others of the extreme left want to do.

Plus, there are things you didn't mention, like making what the word of God says "hate speech," trying to control freedom of speech in the name of 'fairness', when by far the majority of the media are like minded leftists.

A person, or a party, or a 'movement' that is 50.1% Socialist is dangerously tyrannical.

Liberals, just like socialists want to appropriate other people's property, for their idea of how better to make more citizens dependant upon their 'generosity.' It is also the breaking of the Tenth Commandment.

[JonLanceBarker]

sunday man...you need more choices in this poll...i would have voted for Bush BOTH TIMES if i had been old enough to vote at those times.

now i am old enough to vote.

i WOULD vote for Bush again (if it weren't illegal nowadays for presidents to run a third term), especially if he were running against Madame Clinton, her Buffalo Bill, or Al "I Used to be the Next President" Gore.

however, since he isn't running...:shrug:

Republicans...Huckabee. seriously. :thumb:

[FirstSunday33ad]

so you think we can just spew out an entire army to go overseas on the spur of the moment? 30 days sounds pretty fast to me. There are a lot of logistics involved in getting an army together and moved. Not to mention all the political red tape to go through.

And again, you damn bush if he does go to war and damn him if he delays going to war. You are just a hatefulled liberal weenie FS33.

Rapid Deployment Force.

Back in the days of the Cold War, the Pentagon realized that they could lose Europe before they had time to get troops overseas. They developed the Rapid Deployment Force to send a sizable army to any point on the planet. Their job was to slow up an advancing enemy and give the main body time to arrive.

The RDF could have taken Afghanistan on its own.

[FirstSunday33ad]

right, You didn't answer him because you realized he was correct. and it seems to me that it is YOU who sees everything as black and white and demonizes anyone who isn't a commie liberal hippie like you.

Okay, now you Repub's are scaring me. One nut job is one thing, but when the nut job is described as "correct" by someone I normally wouldn't describe as a nut job; that is when I start to worry about the fate of the planet. :pray:

[FirstSunday33ad]

Is this a legitimate poll? I mean, are you really interested, or just looking for a place to vent?

DUH.....I am interested in finding out how many right wingers would still vote for Bush, what the percentage is between Left-wingers and Right-wingers there are on this board and if any of the Right-wingers are delusional nut-jobs.

So far there are at least two right-wing nuts.

[FirstSunday33ad]

sunday man...you need more choices in this poll...i would have voted for Bush BOTH TIMES if i had been old enough to vote at those times.

now i am old enough to vote.

i WOULD vote for Bush again (if it weren't illegal nowadays for presidents to run a third term), especially if he were running against Madame Clinton, her Buffalo Bill, or Al "I Used to be the Next President" Gore.

however, since he isn't running...:shrug:

Republicans...Huckabee. seriously. :thumb:

Okay, so Huckabee is the candidate for delusional nut-jobs and immature voters lurking on the right.

What is it Huckabee would do that has you so juiced? Nothing like shooting gays or torturing liberals I hope?

[TyRockwell]

Okay, so Huckabee is the candidate for delusional nut-jobs and immature voters lurking on the right.

What is it Huckabee would do that has you so juiced? Nothing like shooting gays or torturing liberals I hope?
Christians don't do such things. We just get accused that we would by the ungodly. The very accusation shows how the left is so ungodly. The only Republican candidate that is totally undeserving is Ron Paul, any of the others will be better than any Democrat.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Christians don't do such things. We just get accused that we would by the ungodly. The very accusation shows how the left is so ungodly. The only Republican candidate that is totally undeserving is Ron Paul, any of the others will be better than any Democrat.

No Christians don't kill gays or torture leftists.

But apparently they disagree with taxing cigarette consumption and giving the money to provide medical coverage to poor sick children.

And apparently they have no problem with letting others torture people on their behalf

Nor apparently do they have any qualms about telling lies in order to justify an invasion

And cutting services that aid the underpriviledged while giving the wealthy massive tax cuts are certainly not an ethical issue to them.

But then, maybe I'm not talking about Christians but about the right wing. In which case, Christians indeed might have a problem with all of the above and it is only the right which does not.

[TyRockwell]

No Christians don't kill gays or torture leftists.

But apparently they disagree with taxing cigarette consumption and giving the money to provide medical coverage to poor sick children.

And apparently they have no problem with letting others torture people on their behalf

Nor apparently do they have any qualms about telling lies in order to justify an invasion

And cutting services that aid the underpriviledged while giving the wealthy massive tax cuts are certainly not an ethical issue to them.

But then, maybe I'm not talking about Christians but about the right wing. In which case, Christians indeed might have a problem with all of the above and it is only the right which does not.
We didn't agree with the British Tea tax, either. The government governs best when it knows what NOT to do.

The role of the government is to hold kiilers and tortuers accountable for the life of their fellow man.Gen. 9:5-6 Civil government does not bear the sword in vain, they are ministers of God to bring wrath upon evildoers.--Paul

Truth be told Sadaam Hussien Wanted the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction. Democrats believed him, too.

The wealthy get to keep their private property, and "You have the poor with YOU always, and You can help them anytime YOU wish." --Jesus said it. Its not your job to decide that other people should help the poor. Do it yourself, but leave other people's property alone.

The left hold far more unChristian positions.

Peace and Truth,
Ty

[FirstSunday33ad]

We didn't agree with the British Tea tax, either. The government governs best when it knows what NOT to do.

The role of the government is to hold kiilers and tortuers accountable for the life of their fellow man.Gen. 9:5-6 Civil government does not bear the sword in vain, they are ministers of God to bring wrath upon evildoers.--Paul

Truth be told Sadaam Hussien Wanted the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction. Democrats believed him, too.

The wealthy get to keep their private property, and "You have the poor with YOU always, and You can help them anytime YOU wish." --Jesus said it. Its not your job to decide that other people should help the poor. Do it yourself, but leave other people's property alone.

The left hold far more unChristian positions.

Peace and Truth,
Ty

Yeah, yeah. Slavery was justified with biblical scripture as well.

Do you know I can use scripture to prove that Jesus advocated begging?

Anyway, you have your world and you are happy in it so I'm sure you're happy. But I did look up your pick of the week Huckabee. You know he will raise your taxes don't you? I mean REALLY raise your taxes - National sales tax, gas tax, cigarette tax. The only tax he will cut will be the income tax - which will really benefit the wealthy.

Hope you have deep pockets if he gets elected.

[Jeiel]

The only Republican candidate that is totally undeserving is Ron Paul.

Excuse me for intruding, but I would like to know why Ron Paul is undeserving?
And, if he won the nomination, would you vote for him or Hillary Clinton?

[TyRockwell]

Excuse me for intruding, but I would like to know why Ron Paul is undeserving?
And, if he won the nomination, would you vote for him or Hillary Clinton?
Even the worst Republican, so-called, Ron Paul, is better than Hillary Clinton, or any Demorat, except maybe for Joseph Lieberman.

Totally True,
Ty

[JonLanceBarker]

Okay, so Huckabee is the candidate for delusional nut-jobs and immature voters lurking on the right.

What is it Huckabee would do that has you so juiced? Nothing like shooting gays or torturing liberals I hope?

thanks for providing my weekly doseage of delusional liberal paranoia.
:thumb:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Even the worst Republican, so-called, Ron Paul, is better than Hillary Clinton, or any Demorat, except maybe for Joseph Lieberman.

Totally True,
TySo all a Democrat needs to do is a be an outspoken supporter of anything Pro-Israel and they become a viable option?

Because that is really the only thing that seperates Lieberman from "democrats".

Curiously, what exactly makes Obama a bad candidate? And don't give me the inexperience thing. I just found out Fred Thompson has only 8 years of government experience. I was rather shocked seeing he was the golden boy to many, I just assumed he had a huge career in DC.

[Jimmy Higgins]

We didn't agree with the British Tea tax, either. The government governs best when it knows what NOT to do.Didn't agree with the British Tea tax because those against it had large stakes in tea companies.


The role of the government is to hold kiilers and tortuers accountable for the life of their fellow man.Gen. 9:5-6 What about white collar crime?


Truth be told Sadaam Hussien Wanted the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction.Because Iraq was militarily weak and he knew if invaded, they'd get their butt kicked. It's called a bluff. Of course, our intelligence pointed to the fact it was a bluff, and the UN Inspectors were certainly finding no evidence to the contrary either.

[Jeiel]

Even the worst Republican, so-called, Ron Paul, is better than Hillary Clinton, or any Demorat, except maybe for Joseph Lieberman.

Totally True,
Ty

But if you would support Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton, why do you support Giuliani?
I can not see anything that distinguishes Hillary from Rudy.

They are both in favor of continuing the Iraq war, supporting Israel, legal abortion, gay marriage and in continuing current government programs (medicaid, social security, etc.).

If you really like Rudy, then you should logically support Hillary if Ron wins the Republican nomination, since she would be more Rudy-like than Ron.

And to the OP: I am not an American, but I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004, and I even supported the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Although I still think supporting Bush in 2000 made sense, I deeply regret supporting him in 2004 and supporting his wars.

I am a big Ron Paul fan and I hope that either Paul or Obama (or Kucinich) becomes the next US president.

And yes, I am a YEC, though it's really not relevant for this poll, no matter how much you like to insult us.

[FirstSunday33ad]

But if you would support Ron Paul over Hillary Clinton, why do you support Giuliani?
I can not see anything that distinguishes Hillary from Rudy.

They are both in favor of continuing the Iraq war, supporting Israel, legal abortion, gay marriage and in continuing current government programs (medicaid, social security, etc.).

If you really like Rudy, then you should logically support Hillary if Ron wins the Republican nomination, since she would be more Rudy-like than Ron.

And to the OP: I am not an American, but I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004, and I even supported the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Although I still think supporting Bush in 2000 made sense, I deeply regret supporting him in 2004 and supporting his wars.

I am a big Ron Paul fan and I hope that either Paul or Obama (or Kucinich) becomes the next US president.

And yes, I am a YEC, though it's really not relevant for this poll, no matter how much you like to insult us.

Since you referred to me in your reply I feel obligated to reply:

Bush fooled a lot of people in 2000 and 2004 (not me then - but he did after 9/11. However, It wasn't until Katrina that I truly realized what a complete incompetent the man was). That said, the YEC comment was sarcasm meant for those who STILL support Bush despite the last 6.5 years of disaster.

I apologize if I insulted you or caused offense, I should have been more careful in my attempts to be witty.

[TyRockwell]

Both of you, Jeiel and FS33, are DECEIVED! You must get your news from the mainstream media, or Air America! There is no such thing as 'Bush's wars.'

We are involved in a world-wide war on terrorism. We didn't choose this war. We were attacked. Now, the main front of that war is in Iraq. Afghanistan is not as much a battlefield as Iraq.

When the US was united after 9/11, we all agreed to go after all jihad terrorists, WHEREVER they are, and to go after the supporters and any country that gave them shelter. The war was never to be limited to Afghanistan or Osama bin Laden. The Dictator of Iraq wanted the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction. He brought about his own downfall, because he made himself to appear to be just as dangerous as the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Stop being brainwashed by leftist appeasers. They are living in a fantasy world, believing they could talk to the terrorists and nations that support them, nicey, nice, and they will leave us alone. Learn some history. Real history. The crusades didn't make the Islamic hordes mad at civilized peoples, it was the Muslim invasions of Europe that required that they be driven back. Even then the Fanatics of Islam were the people who actually believe what the Koran said, and acted out its mandates.

Today's liberals are calling themselves Christians, but they don't know or understand the Bible. They believe in a socialism that the Bible does not approve. They are dangerous in wanting to become silencers of those who do stand for truth and stand against demonic evils.

I don't like Rudy. His value, if he becomes the nominee, is that he knows we are under attack. He is far less dangerous than Hillary, or Ron Paul. I hope we don't have to settle for Gulliani. Fred Thompson is better. Though McCain, or Huckabee would be preferable to Rudy, or Ron or especially Hillary.

Jesus said, "If you don't have a sword, get one."

In the love of the truth,
Ty

[nickcopernicus]

Nick:

It's continually surprising how stupid some Americans are.

Cheers,

Nick

edit to add: Source (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html)

[nickcopernicus]

TyRockwell:
Both of you, Jeiel and FS33, are DECEIVED! You must get your news from the mainstream media, or Air America! There is no such thing as 'Bush's wars.'

We are involved in a world-wide war on terrorism. We didn't choose this war. We were attacked. Now, the main front of that war is in Iraq. Afghanistan is not as much a battlefield as Iraq.
Nick:
Emphasis mine.
Absurd.

TyRockwell:
When the US was united after 9/11, we all agreed to go after all jihad terrorists, WHEREVER they are, and to go after the supporters and any country that gave them shelter. The war was never to be limited to Afghanistan or Osama bin Laden. The Dictator of Iraq wanted the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction. He brought about his own downfall, because he made himself to appear to be just as dangerous as the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Stop being brainwashed by leftist appeasers. They are living in a fantasy world, believing they could talk to the terrorists and nations that support them, nicey, nice, and they will leave us alone. Learn some history. Real history. The crusades didn't make the Islamic hordes mad at civilized peoples, it was the Muslim invasions of Europe that required that they be driven back. Even then the Fanatics of Islam were the people who actually believe what the Koran said, and acted out its mandates.

Today's liberals are calling themselves Christians, but they don't know or understand the Bible. They believe in a socialism that the Bible does not approve. They are dangerous in wanting to become silencers of those who do stand for truth and stand against demonic evils.

I don't like Rudy. His value, if he becomes the nominee, is that he knows we are under attack. He is far less dangerous than Hillary, or Ron Paul. I hope we don't have to settle for Gulliani. Fred Thompson is better. Though McCain, or Huckabee would be preferable to Rudy, or Ron or especially Hillary.

Jesus said, "If you don't have a sword, get one."

In the love of the truth,
Ty
Nick:
:ahem:

Bad rhetoric, faulty reasoning, and misinformed. You are the steryotypical gullible public.

[TyRockwell]

Nick:
Emphasis mine.
Absurd.

Nick:
:ahem:

Bad rhetoric, faulty reasoning, and misinformed. You are the steryotypical gullible public.
Yours is the bad rhetoric, with non-existent reasoning, and mis-informed. Disprove my assertions in post #52. You can't. It would take reasoning, and a knowledge of history.

:joy:

Ty

[RumTumTugger]

sunday man...you need more choices in this poll...i would have voted for Bush BOTH TIMES if i had been old enough to vote at those times.

now i am old enough to vote.

i WOULD vote for Bush again (if it weren't illegal nowadays for presidents to run a third term), especially if he were running against Madame Clinton, her Buffalo Bill, or Al "I Used to be the Next President" Gore.

however, since he isn't running...:shrug:

Republicans...Huckabee. seriously. :thumb:

:thumb: yep my vote goes to Huckabee in the primary.

[nickcopernicus]

Both of you, Jeiel and FS33, are DECEIVED! You must get your news from the mainstream media, or Air America! There is no such thing as 'Bush's wars.'
Nick:
I've been to both Afghanistan and I currently live in Iraq.
My information is as good as one can get without being a CIA agent or something.

TyRockwell
We are involved in a world-wide war on terrorism.
Nick:
True.

TyRockwell
We didn't choose this war.
Nick:
False. It's true that the US Government did not initiate first strike, but the choice whether to retaliate was indeed within the government's ability.

TyRockwell
We were attacked.
Nick:
True.

TyRockwell:
Now, the main front of that war is in Iraq. Afghanistan is not as much a battlefield as Iraq.
Nick:
It's false that "Afghanistan is not so much of a battlefield." Soliders continue to die there. Al Quaida, Backed by the Taliban continue to ravage the south. Much of these terrorist groups are funded by Heroine. In Afghanistan, one needs not go far to see miles and miles of opium, the plant used in heroine growing wild. A poor Afghan farmer is more likely to harvest Opium then things like fruit, dates, and nuts. It's much more profitable to farm Heroine then it is to farm edible food. To a degree, the farmers have no choice. They must find some way to survive. Also, Afghanistan marijuana is also well renowned. With the funding behind these drugs, terrorists are unlikely to run out of funds. While the war in Afghanistan is not as well covered as the war in Iraq, that is mostly because the American public seems to have a short term memory.

On the other hand, there was no evidence of Sadaam having any connection with Al Quaida prior to the US invastion AFAICT. The war in Iraq has accomplised one and only one thing. It has removed Sadaam from power. Many Iraqi local nationals are upset because "while Sadaam was a tyrannt, he would not allow forigeners to kill Iraqis." As in Afghanistan, in Iraq, many of the suicide bombers are Iranians, Syrians, Pakistani's and other Forieign nationals.
It remains a fact that the US seems no safer after the invasion in Iraq. The Iraq war is simply extremly expenisve.

TyRockwell:
When the US was united after 9/11, we all agreed to go after all jihad terrorists, WHEREVER they are, and to go after the supporters and any country that gave them shelter. The war was never to be limited to Afghanistan or Osama bin Laden. The Dictator of Iraq wanted the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction. He brought about his own downfall, because he made himself to appear to be just as dangerous as the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Nick:
AFAICT, if there are WMD's in Iraq, then I've not heard of them being found in mass quanties that the Bush Administration had led many to believe.

Now, please support the assertion that "The Dictator of Iraq wanted the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction." That's unlikely.

TyRockwell:
Stop being brainwashed by leftist appeasers.
Nick:
Oh the irony.

TyRockwell:
They are living in a fantasy world, believing they could talk to the terrorists and nations that support them, nicey, nice, and they will leave us alone. Learn some history. Real history. The crusades didn't make the Islamic hordes mad at civilized peoples, it was the Muslim invasions of Europe that required that they be driven back. Even then the Fanatics of Islam were the people who actually believe what the Koran said, and acted out its mandates.
Nick:
:lol:

TyRockwell:
Today's liberals are calling themselves Christians, but they don't know or understand the Bible.
Nick:
A baseless assertion.

TyRockwell:
They believe in a socialism that the Bible does not approve. They are dangerous in wanting to become silencers of those who do stand for truth and stand against demonic evils.

I don't like Rudy. His value, if he becomes the nominee, is that he knows we are under attack. He is far less dangerous than Hillary, or Ron Paul. I hope we don't have to settle for Gulliani. Fred Thompson is better. Though McCain, or Huckabee would be preferable to Rudy, or Ron or especially Hillary.

Jesus said, "If you don't have a sword, get one."

In the love of the truth,
Ty
Nick:
You don't know what you are talking about.
The Bush Administration spends over 1.5 trillion dollars per year than the Clinton Administration. (http://www.jec.senate.gov/Documents/Reports/BushIsNoClinton14mar2007.pdf) I hope you're really rich if we get another Republican into office. A depression will be forthcoming.

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

:thumb: yep my vote goes to Huckabee in the primary.
Nick:
More gullible public.

Cheers,

nick

[RumTumTugger]

Nick:
More gullible public.

Cheers,

nick

No, just that Huckabee is the closest candidate to my view on the issues I am passionate about education, security of our country, lower taxes for ALL. my right to choose to have the weapons I need to protect myself from criminals if I choose, Sanctity of life and families, etc. Something I know I won't get with Hilary or Obama or any of the other democrat candidates.

What you and FirstSunday want? anyone but a Republican?

[nickcopernicus]

No, just that Huckabee is the closest candidate to my view on the issues I am passionate about education, security of our country, lower taxes for ALL.
Nick:
"Lower taxes?" Have you any ideal of what the National debt is? Do you care?
Edit to add: If I remember correctly, over 50% of all taxes are paid by like 5% of the people.


RumTumTugger:
my right to choose to have the weapons I need to protect myself from criminals if I choose,
Nick:
So do I.

RumTumTugger:
Sanctity of life and families, etc.
Nick:
What exactly do you mean by "Sanctity of life?"
What do you mean by "Sanctity of families?"

RumTumTugger:
Something I know I won't get with Hilary or Obama or any of the other democrat candidates.
Nick:
Perhaps your expectations of the government are misguided.

RumTumTugger:
What you and FirstSunday want? anyone but a Republican?
Nick:
I want to avoid a depression. I want the American dollar to be worth something.
I don't want to see American's starve. I want to see fewer homeless people. I want to see fewer poor Americans. But that's just me I suppose.

I know that as of yet, the Republicans are grossly incompotent as far as balancing a budget. I'd like a president who can at least not sound like an idiot. Is it too much to ask to have the single most powerful person in the world be able to speak English correctly?


Cheers,

Nick

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

If it were possible and Bush were able to run for a third term, would you vote for him?

No and I didnt vote for him in the last election.

[Faramir]

Remember to avoid slogans and Limbaugh sounds bites and avoid using personal descriptions (like, "obama has funny ears" or "Hillary reminds me of my mother in law, etc).

GO!
AND


Okay, so Huckabee is the candidate for delusional nut-jobs and immature voters lurking on the right.

What is it Huckabee would do that has you so juiced? Nothing like shooting gays or torturing liberals I hope?

:ahem:

:irony:

[joel]

Bush cut taxes even though it has proven to be disastrous to the budget. Surpluses have evaporated and colossal deficits are back. However, have you stopped to ask what were those taxes paying for? The war in Iraq, policing, disaster relief, the military, the space program, etc, don’t come cheaply. Neither do roads, infrastructure, debt management, tax cuts to corporations, etc, etc.

At some point your taxes are going to have to go back up. In fact it is a pretty good bet that the U.S. will have to introduce a national sales tax on all goods and services as they have in Canada and Britain. Bush eliminated the possibility of future tax cuts by cutting taxes too deeply for too long. You have been given a present short term gain for a future long term pain.

First of all, the Congress sets the spending budget. It is their fault for not reducing spending.
Secondly, I want the government to cut spending by about, say, 90% or more. Who should I vote for, for president and congress?



BTW - Look luck with the "Free Guns for Pre-Schoolers" Party
Actually, handing out "free" guns would be a socialist policy.



Yeah, yeah. Slavery was justified with biblical scripture as well.I don't think you want to bring up slavery. Democrats supported slavery. It's the Republicans that defeated slavery.



The only tax he will cut will be the income tax - which will really benefit the wealthy.
It's funny when liberals accuse the income tax of being unfairly easy on the wealthy, but then turn around and say that cutting the income tax would primarily benefit the wealthy. Which is it? Do the wealthy pay most of the income tax or not?



However, It wasn't until Katrina that I truly realized what a complete incompetent the man was
Posse Comitatus.

[historic salve]

If the alternative was Algore or either of the Clintons, I'd vote for him again despite my disappointment in some aspects of his performance.

Oh, I'm TE, not YEC.
Same here.

[Super Cow]

I could not vote last election, though I tipped my wife away from John Kerry towards Bush. I might be eligible in the next election. I would not vote for Bush in the primary, however, in the general I would vote for anyone who might beat John Kerry so I still consider 2004 the best possible outcome. If he was running against Clinton/Gore, I'd probably vote Libertarian.