[zigzag]

Originally posted by TubaMuffins:
That's pretty funny because every business Bush has been in charge of has gone under, even his baseball team is horrible. It does not project good leadership skills, that's for sure.

Bush's oil company never made an operating profit but it appears that he was able to salt away enough assets to attract a buyer, which then put him in more of a salesman/schmoozer role (although that company eventually failed). Similarly, my understanding is that he had little to do with actually managing the baseball team - he was more the front man, the schmoozer. From what I've read (could be wrong, of course), it was much the same as Governor - the Texas legislature only meets for several months every other year, and the Lieutenant Governor does most of the legwork, so a lot of what Bush did was ceremonial (not that he didn't have an impact or a leadership or mediating role as well). Front man/schmoozer seems to be a role that suits him, which is fine, I just don't know if it's suitable for the Presidency, which is also very ceremonial in nature, but requires much more IMO. As President, he doesn't even seem to be that good at schmoozing, even though that was his big selling point in 2000.

I've said elsewhere that he's very much the first MBA President. This seemed acceptable before 9/11, when all seemed well except for a bit of an economic downturn, but I think the job demands different skills, especially in the post-9/11 environment. Kerry is a bit of a cold fish but I suspect that he has a better skill set.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
I'm tired of funding with taxes everything the left wing wants to socialize.

Yeah, those left wingers are a bunch of crazy free spenders. What rock have you been under for the last quarter-century ?

Carter: broke even
Reagan: 81 bln in the hole
Bush : 135 bln in the hole (in half as much time as Reagan !!)
Clinton: 523 bln net gain.
Bush II: ummmm .... WTF ?? I'm getting nosebleed just from looking at that graph.

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
I'm tired of funding with taxes everything the left wing wants to socialize.

Yet the right recieves all the free handouts.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
I'm tired of funding with taxes everything the left wing wants to socialize.

I'm tired of funding with taxes everything the right wants to deregulate and privatize.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Yeah, those left wingers are a bunch of crazy free spenders. What rock have you been under for the last quarter-century ?

It's the left wingers in Congress and prior adminstrations who forced us into an entitlement society.

Get rid of entitlements and we'd have a $500 billion per year surplus.

BTW, those surpluses under Clinton weren't surpluses if you removed the SS trust fund income from the picture.

Thank the left for forcing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, etc. down our throats to the tune of over $1 trillion per year.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Thank the left for forcing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, etc. down our throats to the tune of over $1 trillion per year.

Your welcome, but unfortunately we can't take credit for slapping a trillian dollar tax cut and billions for a war in Iraq on top of that.

[ringo]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Thank the left for forcing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, etc. down our throats to the tune of over $1 trillion per year.

You keep saying that like it's a bad thing.

Thank you, "the left", for taking care of my grandmother's medical bills and helping to keep her afloat after my grandfather passed away. Thank you, "the left", for helping my mother put food in my mouth when I was a wee thing. Thank you, "the left", for caring for the living widows of those who gave their lives in WWII instead of leaving them to starve or die of infection because they failed to earn enough to retire on without help.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Krusty:
I'm getting nosebleed just from looking at that graph.

You're distorting the severity of Bush's budget deficit with that graph. It isn't the absolute size of the deficit that's important, but how large it is compared to the GDP.

I'd appreciate it if you'd post a plot of the GDP-adjusted budget deficit data from table 2 (CBO Data), since I don't know how to post Excel graphs. Also, note the following revenue data from that same table:

Revenues, 1992 to 2003 (Percentage of GDP)

1992 17.5%

1993 17.6%
1994 18.1%
1995 18.5%
1996 18.9%
1997 19.3%
1998 20%
1999 20%
2000 20.9%

2001 19.8%
2002 17.9%
2003 16.5%
2004 -

You'll see that under Clinton, the gov't siphoned off a greater proportion of our GDP with each passing year, whereas under Bush the gov't spent less of our nation's wealth with each consecutive year (despite the WoT).

I'm not arguing that Bush's fiscal policy has been better than Gore's would've been, but I'm simply pointing out that you're not representing the current situation correctly.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by chris v:
I'm tired of funding with taxes everything the right wants to deregulate and privatize.

or blow up/nation build?

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by ringo:
You keep saying that like it's a bad thing.

It is when charity is being perpetrated using other people's income against their will.

Thank you, "the left", for taking care of my grandmother's medical bills and helping to keep her afloat after my grandfather passed away. Thank you, "the left", for helping my mother put food in my mouth when I was a wee thing. Thank you, "the left", for caring for the living widows of those who gave their lives in WWII instead of leaving them to starve or die of infection because they failed to earn enough to retire on without help.

Bore me with something else. It's not the responsibility of the taxpayer or the government to financially make sure everyone's off the street.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by itai195:
Your welcome, but unfortunately we can't take credit for slapping a trillian dollar tax cut and billions for a war in Iraq on top of that.

The people deserve to keep the money they earn. Taxes are still too high, there's still too much money being stolen from one person to be given to another.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What they hate isn't entirely Bush, it's policies that put American interests first, and a national predominance that makes it stick. There were the same complaints about Clinton. Maybe you don't recall that it was during Clinton's presidency when the French foreign minister started decrying US "hyperpower."

It is true that they dislike Bush's style. He doesn't listen to European nationalists and he doesn't pretend to apologize for being the president of the United States (and only of the United States). Clinton had a way of saying "**** off" that stroked their egos. FOr example, he praised the Kyoto accords and the landmine treaty at exactly the same time he made sure that the US wouldn't be participating. Substantively, his policy was identical to Bush, but stylistically, he was poles apart.

Europeans probably would like Kerry more than Bush. He is more likely to accomodate US interests to theirs. He has made it clear, for example, that he wouldn't pursue military operations if the French or Germans oppose it. Because they would oppose almost anything, we can be sure that a Kerry presidency would be non-confontational, but also not very effective. He will have solid alliances that won't do anything. I don't think that is any way to fight a war, but then I don't think Kerry really believes it is a war. I think he will look for a way to call the war off and accommodate the US to terrorism rather than try to defeat it. Bowing to European sensibilities in the name of building alliances is how he would do it.

But I suppose it is possible he might try pushing those alliances. For example, he has been promising he can get the French and Germans to deploy enough combat forces to Iraq that Americans could begin withdrawing. I'd be very surprised if either French or German public opinion will go along with that. If he really does push it, he may have a rather short honeymoon with Europe.

That would be interpretation as well. And certainly the actual policies of expansion will not be cancelled overnight, especially if budgets are already rolling and that there is an actual advantage to keep things that way.

The sugar coating will just be different.

But I agree with Macvillage thought. Bush has been the most unplaisant President of late, yet people have great admiration for America for the values being entertained. Not necessarily to be envied, but to be observed with great interest, for these are not bad values, and many are shared around the world!

America does not have a monopoly on Freedom. It is a very relative concept.

Kerry would softened America's look though...

[ringo]

Edit: n/m I'm only helping to derail the thread at this point.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Yeah, those left wingers are a bunch of crazy free spenders. What rock have you been under for the last quarter-century ?

Carter: broke even
Reagan: 81 bln in the hole
Bush : 135 bln in the hole (in half as much time as Reagan !!)
Clinton: 523 bln net gain.
Bush II: ummmm .... WTF ?? I'm getting nosebleed just from looking at that graph.

Can I quote you on that?



(lol)

[f1000]

Originally posted by MindFad:
Can I quote you on that?

Look, MindFad, here's the size of the budget deficit with respect to the GDP from 1993-2003 (in percentages):

1993 -3.9%
1994 -2.9%
1995 -2.2%
1996 -1.4%
1997 -0.3%
1998 0.8%
1999 1.4%
2000 2.4

2001 1.3%
2002 -1.5%
2003 -3.5%

As you can see, Bush had a smaller budget deficit in terms of percentage of the economy than Clinton had in 1993.

Now I agree that the trend in the budget deficit of the Clinton administration looks much better than that of the Bush administration, but Clinton spent a greater proportion of the nation's wealth to fund his budget than Bush did.

Bush's current deficit is a direct result of his premature cutting of taxes in an ideological attempt to force Congress to pare down its budget.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by f1000:
, but Clinton spent a greater proportion of the nation's wealth to fund his budget than Bush did.

Could you explain what you mean? I don't understand this at all.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by f1000:
You're distorting the severity of Bush's budget deficit with that graph. It isn't the absolute size of the deficit that's important, but how large it is compared to the GDP.

I'd appreciate it if you'd post a plot of the GDP-adjusted budget deficit data from table 2 (CBO Data), since I don't know how to post Excel graphs. Also, note the following revenue data from that same table:

Revenues, 1992 to 2003 (Percentage of GDP)

1992 17.5%

1993 17.6%
1994 18.1%
1995 18.5%
1996 18.9%
1997 19.3%
1998 20%
1999 20%
2000 20.9%

2001 19.8%
2002 17.9%
2003 16.5%
2004 -

You'll see that under Clinton, the gov't siphoned off a greater proportion of our GDP with each passing year, whereas under Bush the gov't spent less of our nation's wealth with each consecutive year (despite the WoT).

I'm not arguing that Bush's fiscal policy has been better than Gore's would've been, but I'm simply pointing out that you're not representing the current situation correctly.

There's merit to that, but that's also in a sense inaccurate.

Our deficit is pretty much what it is. There's no easy way to pad/buffer/defer it. GDP on the otherhand has so many billions of factors economists still debate everything that can/does impact it, and to the degree.

It's also not quite directly related.

Note the formula for GDP (oversimplified of course):

GDP = consumption + investment + government expenditures + exports - imports


Note the short term, and long term things at play here.

To be accurate you'd really need a measure of many more things to make a complete picture, and weigh each appropriately. No such model exists.


Weighing with GDP is no more accurate than not doing it. It's just a different bias to the same theory.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by f1000:
You're distorting the severity of Bush's budget deficit with that graph. It isn't the absolute size of the deficit that's important, but how large it is compared to the GDP.

Good point. My graph shows the severity in whole dollar amounts rather than percentage of GDP. Gimme a little while to find (or create from the CBO data) a GDP adjusted graph.

Originally posted by f1000:

I'd appreciate it if you'd post a plot of the GDP-adjusted budget deficit data from table 2 (CBO Data), since I don't know how to post Excel graphs. Also, note the following revenue data from that same table:

Revenues, 1992 to 2003 (Percentage of GDP)
1992 17.5%

1993 17.6%
1994 18.1%
1995 18.5%
1996 18.9%
1997 19.3%
1998 20%
1999 20%
2000 20.9%

2001 19.8%
2002 17.9%
2003 16.5%
2004 -

You'll see that under Clinton, the gov't siphoned off a greater proportion of our GDP with each passing year,

Good point but your missing the point. YES .. revenues as a percent of GDP were higher under Clinton ... and the budget was balanced. Bush has reduced the percentage of revenues and we have a huge deficit. Get it ?? He's not taxing enough to cover what he's spending. He needs to raise taxes OR cut spending and he's done neither. His spending has continued at a far faster clip than under Clinton yet he's cutting taxes in the mean time. That is fiscal irresponsibility.

whereas under Bush the gov't spent less of our nation's wealth with each consecutive year (despite the WoT).

NO !!! You're chart is of REVENUES !!! He has collected less in taxes (as a percentage of GDP) but he has NOT spent less with each passing year !! Look at OUTLAYS
-- that's what they are actually spending.
1992 22.2%

1993 21.5%
1994 21.0%
1995 20.7%
1996 20.3%
1997 19.5%
1998 19.2%
1999 18.6%
2000 18.4%

2001 18.6%
2002 19.4%
2003 19.9%
2004 -

What you see for spending is that Clinton SPENT LESS with each passing year and Bush has spent MORE with each passing year as a percent of GDP. Yet with this increase in spending, Bush has cut taxes. End Result: MASSIVE increase in deficit.

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
BTW, those surpluses under Clinton weren't surpluses if you removed the SS trust fund income from the picture.

A) Horsesh*t: the surpluses were still surpluses even when adjusted for SS. Look it up in the CBO data (fl1000 gave you the link). Its in black and white
B) If you're going to adjust out for Clinton, then do so for Bush too. It will make his numbers look even worse too. The net effect of excluding the SS trust will be to lower the entire graph I posted -- for all the Presidents -- Bush too.
C) The basic fact remains. Clinton taxed more and spent less. He balanced the budget. Bush has cut taxes but continued to spend. He has sent the budget into a deficit.

I'm sorry, I find it unbelievable some of the things you (and even fl1000) are trying to assert. The numbers from the CBO are very easy to read. Do you not know the difference between revenues and outlays ? Decreasing revenues does not automatically imply that outlays have been reduced.

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:

Thank the left for forcing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, etc. down our throats to the tune of over $1 trillion per year.

The people collecting SS and Medicare right now have paid into the system for 40 or 50 years. If you wanna stop SS, then you need to give them back all the money they've put in plus interest in the 40 -50 years they were contributing.. They are living off the money they put into the system. The money you are putting in is to pay for YOU when you retire.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Clinton taxed more and spent less. He balanced the budget. Bush has cut taxes but continued to spend. He has sent the budget into a deficit.

I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? Where do all appropriations begin?

Under Bush, I have more money. Figure that. I hated Clinton for his tax hikes.

The people collecting SS and Medicare right now have paid into the system for 40 or 50 years.

Not all of them and some of them are getting out more than they should. That's the biggest problem.

If you wanna stop SS, then you need to give them back all the money they've put in plus interest in the 40 -50 years they were contributing..

Works for me. Get me off the goddamned socialist merry-go-round.

The money you are putting in is to pay for YOU when you retire.

There won't be any money left in 35 years when I retire because some others are getting too much back.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? Where do all appropriations begin?

Under Bush, I have more money. Figure that. I hated Clinton for his tax hikes.

True. We all have a little more money. But it has been bad for the general budget. But yes, those of us with steady jobs have a few hundred bucks more per year than we did. Unfortunately there is this gargantuan deficit that has been built (rather rapidly) so we can have a few hundred extra bucks per year.

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:

Not all of them and some of them are getting out more than they should. That's the biggest problem

You're right about this. Its not a perfect system but it is a contract. A public trust. Some are collecting far more than they ever put in. Then again, some people have contributed their whole lives and then keel over before they collect a dime. Sh*t ain't fair -- its structured in an attempt to be fair but its not perfect by any means.

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:

Works for me. Get me off the goddamned socialist merry-go-round.

If you run your own business, you absolutely don't have to contribute to SS. Your benefit when you retire is directly related to how much you contributed. Some people don't need or want SS .. drop it if you wish. If you are receiving a salary, take heart in the fact that your employer is contributing to your SS fund as well .. essentially giving you double for your money when it comes to contributions vs. what you will get back.

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:

There won't be any money left in 35 years when I retire because some others are getting too much back.

You could be right .... I worry about this too. However, that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people collecting right now have spent their entire lives putting in to the system as deemed appropriate by the government at the time. That is to say, they paid what they were told was enough to pay. The demographics of the country have changed a bit and, looking back, they probably should have paid in a little more to get the benefits they're getting now (but, who knew people would live so long and that the birthrate would drop so markedly ?? -- they were making the best judgment they could at the time) Believe it or not, the world and the federal budget does not hinge solely upon what is "fair" to Spoogepieces or Krusty. Its broad brushstrokes meant to be as fair as possible to as many people as possible. Judging from your "35 years 'til retirement" statement, you and I are within a few years of the same age (I'm 34). We sucked off society for years as children without paying one dime into it. For better or worse, we are now at the age where we are the workhorses of society. Now is the age at which we are net contributors to the common good. We had a free ride as children and will have it again (??) when we retire. But right now, sh*t ain't fair to us -- and the same can be said of people who are retired now when they were our age.

[unrelated aside not directed at Spooge]
I have to say. The older and krustier I get the more I understand the term the "greatest generation" when describing the people who won WW II and who are largely in their 80's or older now. Not only did they win the war against Fascism, they came home and built a society that was better than what they had growing up (public education, 40hr work weeks, etc). No bitching about "It's not fair to me, I didn't have that growing up" They made a better society for all of us at their expense and our gain. Most of them did not fully realize the benefits of the society they passed on to us. We get to live these benefits yet it seems like all we do is b*tch and moan about "getting our fair share" and making sure that -- for God's sake -- we don't have to contribute more that we get. If you are between 25-ish and 55-ish (myself included), Republican or Democrat, it time to face the fact that these 30 (or so) years of our lives, out of 80 ? are the time that we have to carry the brunt of the responsibility for society and for what we pass along to those who come after us
[/corny aside]

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Unfortunately there is this gargantuan deficit that has been built (rather rapidly) so we can have a few hundred extra bucks per year.

The deficit isn't my problem.

Its not a perfect system but it is a contract. A public trust.

Then I want out of the contract. Oh, wait, I can't.

You could be right .... I worry about this too. However, that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people collecting right now have spent their entire lives putting in to the system as deemed appropriate by the government at the time.

Well, it's time to pull the plug.

We sucked off society for years as children without paying one dime into it.

WTF are you talking about?

Now is the age at which we are net contributors to the common good.

Yawn.

[aberdeenwriter]

Thanks, Pac Head!

I have been SO against Bush that I hadn't even bothered visiting Kerry-Edwards' website.

Your thread gives me reason to research the Democratic ticket and WHAT DO YOU KNOW???!!!

They have a damn good platform!

I'm PROUD of their qualifications and will now MIX my posts with PRO - Kerry and ANTI - Bush messages!



WHY I WILL VOTE FOR KERRY/EDWARDS!

1) Restoring America�s Alliances

Kerry will launch a New Era of Alliances for a post 9-11 world, to restore America's place in the world and make us safer.

2) Preventing the Spread of Dangerous Weapons

Kerry has a comprehensive plan to secure nuclear weapons and nuclear materials worldwide. Will secure all nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union and complete Global Cleanout of bomb material within four years.

3) Strengthening America�s Military to Meet New Threats.

Kerry will strengthen our military, including doubling our Special Forces capability to fight the war on terror; improve our technology; and task our National Guard with Homeland Security. Add 40,000 new soldiers to the active-duty Army -- not to increase the number of soldiers in Iraq -- but to prevent and prepare for other possible conflicts.

4) Achieving Energy Independence From Mideast Oil

Kerry has a detailed plan to end America's dangerous dependence on Mideast oil to secure our full independence and freedom. Will stop using kid-gloves with countries that launder money for terrorism.

5) Taking the Burden off the American Military & Taxpayer

Kerry plans to internationalize the security and reconstruction effort by making Iraq part of NATO's global mission and by involving allies in rebuilding the country, providing troops and financial commitments.

6) Planning for Iraq�s Future

Kerry has a strategy to implement an international effort to coordinate reconstruction efforts, draft the national constitution, and organize elections. Work with allies to forgive Iraq's multi-billion dollar debts. Convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs.

7) Building Security In Iraq

Kerry will launch a massive training effort to build a professional Iraqi security force, including a major role for NATO.

8) Fighting the War on Terrorism

Kerry will launch a bold, comprehensive strategy to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks, double our Special Forces capability to fight the war on terror, reform our intelligence, crack down on terrorist financing, secure our homeland and prevent the emergence of new terrorists.

9) Building Bridges to Arab and Muslim Countries

Kerry has a plan to win the war of ideas in Arab and Muslim countries.

10) Making Bold Intelligence Reforms

Kerry has a plan that demands accountability, separates analysis and operations, and creates a Director of National Intelligence with real control of all national intelligence personnel and budgets.

11) Protecting the Homeland Plan to keep America safe.

Kerry will give our first responders all the tools they need. Detailed port security & bio-terrorism strategies.

[Spliffdaddy]

He has "plans" for everything.

Ask him for details of those plans and you'll hear deafening silence.

I mean, he "plans" to fix Social Security without cutting benefits, extending the age of qualification, or raising the contribution (tax) rates.

lol. I'd like to hear the details of that. lol.

[chalk_outline]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
He has "plans" for everything.

Ask him for details of those plans and you'll hear deafening silence.

I mean, he "plans" to fix Social Security without cutting benefits, extending the age of qualification, or raising the contribution (tax) rates.

lol. I'd like to hear the details of that. lol.

Could you share the plans of Bush. I won't give the site the hit.

"George W Bush: Focusing on the future, because the past is too ****ing embarrassing."

So why does Bush only focus on Kerry instead of pimping his own accomplishments. He has had four years to kick ass. He seems to have forgotten that the HOMELAND is KING. My cancer is more likely to kill me then Obama. Healthcare is king.. And Bush is loser in that club.

[aberdeenwriter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by zigzag:
[B] Similarly, my understanding is that he had little to do with actually managing the baseball team - he was more the front man, the schmoozer.

I believe Bushy sold his interest in the Texas Rangers to Lowry Mays, the CEO of (the dreaded) Clear Channel Communications.

CC owns more radio and tv stations in the US than anyone else.

Clear Channel practices censorship and presents only conservative points of view in the markets where they own tv and/or radio stations.

In many of the markets they own all or most all the media. This means they have a monopoly on news and entertainment content. Like the Soviet Union's TASS News Service controlled the people by censoring what the public read, saw and heard, CC is a conservative monopoly which acts in much the same way.

They control the flow of ideas!

Clear Channel also is the largest concert organizer in the country and they are the ones responsible for the ultra-high ticket prices at concerts these days.

Also, the DAY AFTER Howard Stern announced he was withdrawing his support for GWB, after being a firm Bushy advocate, Clear Channel violated Stern's contract and removed him from all six of their stations.

Mays may have done this on his own accord as a favor to the President. Some people suspect it might have been prompted by a call from someone 'closer' to the Oval Office.

Freedom of speech is one of our Constitutional rights but while President Bush in office, all bets are off! W does thangs HIS way!
To hell with the constitution and to hell with anyone who pisses him off!

If anyone wants to discuss this issue further let me know and I'll start a new thread.

In conclusion, because of Mays' purchase, Bushy (finally, after several failed business deals) became a millionaire in his own right.

[Spliffdaddy]

cut&paste saves effort, huh?

life's a breeze when you let others do your thinking for you.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
cut&paste saves effort, huh?

life's a breeze when you let others do your thinking for you.

Why not? It seems to work for you! Aren't you a Bushy fanboy?

I cut and paste to make sure the info flow is not hindered by my slow typing. It's more accurate. And SOME people won't bother to click on hyperlinks. You should thank me for TRYING to educate you.

I guess this is an example of my trying to lead a horse to water...

OR...

Maybe you object to my cutting & pasting because you want to experience more of my "essence."

Sorry, I'm not gay. But I appreciate the compliment. If that's what was at the 'bottom' of your chide.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
cut&paste saves effort, huh?

life's a breeze when you let others do your thinking for you.

Spliffdaddy,

I apologize for the cheap shot. You were just attempting a good natured dig.

Ok.

Here's a link to a speech from August 30, 2004 by John Edwards
who gives more details about Kerry/Edward's plans for a better WAR ON TERRORISM.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/s...2004_0830.html

Once again, I apologize.

[zigzag]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
[B]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Similarly, my understanding is that he had little to do with actually managing the baseball team - he was more the front man, the schmoozer.

I believe Bushy sold his interest in the Texas Rangers to Lowry Mays, the CEO of (the dreaded) Clear Channel Communications.

CC owns more radio and tv stations in the US than anyone else.

Clear Channel practices censorship and presents only conservative points of view in the markets where they own tv and/or radio stations.

In many of the markets they own all or most all the media. This means they have a monopoly on news and entertainment content. Like the Soviet Union's TASS News Service controlled the people by censoring what the public read, saw and heard, CC is a conservative monopoly which acts in much the same way.

They control the flow of ideas!

Clear Channel also is the largest concert organizer in the country and they are the ones responsible for the ultra-high ticket prices at concerts these days.

Also, the DAY AFTER Howard Stern announced he was withdrawing his support for GWB, after being a firm Bushy advocate, Clear Channel violated Stern's contract and removed him from all six of their stations.

Mays may have done this on his own accord as a favor to the President. Some people suspect it might have been prompted by a call from someone 'closer' to the Oval Office.

Freedom of speech is one of our Constitutional rights but while President Bush in office, all bets are off! W does thangs HIS way!
To hell with the constitution and to hell with anyone who pisses him off!

If anyone wants to discuss this issue further let me know and I'll start a new thread.

In conclusion, because of Mays' purchase, Bushy (finally, after several failed business deals) became a millionaire in his own right.

The only part of the above post that belongs to me is the very first line. You might want to edit it so that it's properly attributed - it seems that Spliffdaddy thought you simply copied an entire post.

[aberdeenwriter]

Sorry for the clumsy cutting & pasting, zigzag! I'm new to this.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:


Sorry for the clumsy cutting & pasting, zigzag! I'm new to this.

That's OK. To close a quote, you need to end it with [ / b ] [ / quote ] (but don't use the spaces). The system does this for you when you post a direct reply - just leave it as is and start your response on the next line.

[zigzag]

These observations about Bush are from a Reagan conservative, but are almost exactly the same as those I've been making for two years, and should suffice to explain why I will probably vote for Kerry. Any questions?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...ves/index.html

(free visit)

Some highlights:

"Republican partisans have little choice but to focus on Kerry's perceived vulnerabilities. A few high-octane speeches cannot disguise the catastrophic failure of the Bush administration in both its domestic and its foreign policies. Mounting deficits are likely to force eventual tax increases, reversing perhaps President Bush's most important economic legacy. The administration's foreign policy is an even greater shambles, with Iraq aflame and America increasingly reviled by friend and foe alike.

. . .

Bruce Bartlett of the National Center for Policy Analysis points to the flood of red ink unleashed by the administration and predicts that tax hikes are inevitable irrespective of who is elected in November. That is, Bush's fiscal irresponsibility could cancel out his most important economic success for the GOP.

For some conservatives, the clincher in favor of Bush is the war on terrorism . . . Yet Bush's foreign policy record is as bad as his domestic scorecard. The administration correctly targeted the Taliban in Afghanistan, but quickly neglected that nation, which is in danger of falling into chaos. The Taliban is resurgent, violence has flared, drug production has burgeoned and elections have been postponed.

. . .

Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, contrary to administration claims, and no operational relationship with al-Qaida, contrary to administration insinuations. U.S. officials bungled the occupation, misjudging everything from the financial cost to the troop requirements.

Particularly shocking is the administration's ineptitude with regard to Iraq. Fareed Zakaria writes in Newsweek, "On almost every issue involving postwar Iraq -- troop strength, international support, the credibility of exiles, de-Baathification, handling Ayatollah Ali Sistani -- Washington's assumptions and policies have been wrong. By now most have been reversed, often too late to have much effect. This strange combination of arrogance and incompetence has not only destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq. It has had the much broader effect of turning the United States into an international outlaw in the eyes of much of the world."

. . .

Bush . . . has been unable to demonstrate how Iraq has reduced the threat of terrorism against America. Instead, he says: "I need four more years to complete the work. There's more work to do to make America a safer place. There's more work to do to make the world a more peaceful place." Alas, there's more work, far more work, to do because of Bush's misguided policies.

A few conservatives are distressed at what Bush has wrought in Iraq. "Crossfire" host Tucker Carlson said recently: "I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it." William F. Buckley Jr., longtime National Review editor and columnist, wrote: "With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

. . .

The final conservative redoubt is Bush's admirable personal life. Alas, other characteristics of his seem less well suited to the presidency. By his own admission he doesn't do nuance and doesn't read. He doesn't appear to reflect on his actions and seems unable to concede even the slightest mistake. Nor is he willing to hold anyone else responsible for anything. It is a damning combination. John Kerry may flip-flop, but at least he realizes that circumstances change and sometimes require changed policies. He doesn't cowardly flee at the first mention of accountability.

Some onetime administration supporters have grown disillusioned. Sullivan observes: "To have humiliated the United States by presenting false and misleading intelligence and then to have allowed something like Abu Ghraib to happen ... is unforgivable. By refusing to hold anyone accountable, the president has also shown he is not really in control. We are at war; and our war leaders have given the enemy their biggest propaganda coup imaginable, while refusing to acknowledge their own palpable errors and misjudgments."

Those who still believe in Bush have tried to play up comparisons with Ronald Reagan, but I knew Reagan and he was no George W. Bush. It's not just that Reagan read widely, thought deeply about issues and wrote prolifically. He really believed in the primacy of individual liberty and of limited, constitutional government."

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
That would be interpretation as well. And certainly the actual policies of expansion will not be cancelled overnight, especially if budgets are already rolling and that there is an actual advantage to keep things that way.

The sugar coating will just be different.

But I agree with Macvillage thought. Bush has been the most unplaisant President of late, yet people have great admiration for America for the values being entertained. Not necessarily to be envied, but to be observed with great interest, for these are not bad values, and many are shared around the world!

America does not have a monopoly on Freedom. It is a very relative concept.

Kerry would softened America's look though...

Funny thing is, go to most of these new 'anti-american' places and you'll find most of them are actually very fond of America. Just don't like the president.

It's strange how America renames itself after the president in office. As if the president == America.

The rest of the world right now is cheering on any non-Bush american with whitehouse ambissions this term, and the next (since Bush apparantly said once he liked the idea of serving multiple terms, even if they were non-consecutive).


It's funny how our media slants a lot of this to be 'anti-american'. When in actually, a few of these have actually been pro-american movements. Just 'anti-bush'.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
I pick Canada.

Everything is their fault anyway. Damn socialists and their healthcare.

That would be bad. The Canadians kicked our asses when we tried to take over Canada during the Revolutionary War, and they kicked our asses again during the War of 1812. We just have bad luck with Canada -- let's invade Mexico instead, and get all those jobs back in the US. Plus, no more illegal immigrants from Mexico. Everybody wins.

[aberdeenwriter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by zigzag:
[B]These observations about Bush are from a Reagan conservative, but are almost exactly the same as those I've been making for two years, and should suffice to explain why I will probably vote for Kerry. Any questions?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...ves/index.html

INCREDIBLE ARTICLE, ZIG ZAG!

I believe if everyone in America read this, Kerry would SURELY win in November!

Great post!

[Cody Dawg]

Kerry will not win.

Bookmark this page and remember this discussion.

He will not win because:

1. He is not perceived as decisive

2. His "medals" won for "bravery" as suspect

3. He is perceived as a whiner

4. His wife is not American

5. He is divorced

6. He is not telegenic (therefore not appealing)

7. We have a war we are fighting

8. Edwards is perceived as unfit to take over as president if something should happen to Kerry

9. He is perceived as soft on terror

10. He is not a "little guy": He is a billionaire by default (marrying money)

Kerry will not win.

He may be a good guy and he may have good ideas, but he will not win.

More and more I am hearing about how people are going to vote for Bush. A bunch of hardworking guys were in our neighborhood with backhoes and dump trucks today, clearing out the hurricane debris and fallen trees, and they were standing around drinking beer when I got into a conversation with them. They are blue collar workers. One of them said, "I ain't no Republican but I sure ain't voting for Kerry. I'll be voting for Bush because he seems stronger and more able to defend the country."

That's coming from people from America's deep South and I'm hearing it about the heartland folks, also.

[ebuddy]

Because the world hates Bush, not America. What's the point fighting a war against people who don't like you? Kerry is also Catholic of Jewish descent. He's also flexible. People say they know where Bush stands. That's not a good thing. It means they aren't flexible or in two-minds about many issues. A leader should always be in two-minds about war and should always value individual liberty without imposing his personal beliefs on others. That's Kerry. A man enough to be himself and not a full on puppet.

This "two-minds" thing is exactly why Kerry is dropping in the polls. We need one sound mind, not two minds of the bipolar. This guy's all over the place.

[ebuddy]

1) Restoring America�s Alliances

Kerry will launch a New Era of Alliances for a post 9-11 world, to restore America's place in the world and make us safer.

Sounds good on paper. I don't recall him saying HOW he's going to do this.

2) Preventing the Spread of Dangerous Weapons

As stated at the convention; "after we get attacked." Too late IMHO.

Kerry has a comprehensive plan to secure nuclear weapons and nuclear materials worldwide. Will secure all nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union and complete Global Cleanout of bomb material within four years.

He's talking about it, Bush is doing it now. BTW, all these people going to willingly give up their Nuclear arms? According to Kerry they will. Must be a reeeeeaallllly likeable guy.

3) Strengthening America�s Military to Meet New Threats.

More military spending??? I somehow doubt that. He'll vote for it, just before he votes against it. A vote against it will leave us more vulnerable oveseas than we are today.

Kerry will strengthen our military, including doubling our Special Forces capability to fight the war on terror; improve our technology; and task our National Guard with Homeland Security. Add 40,000 new soldiers to the active-duty Army -- not to increase the number of soldiers in Iraq -- but to prevent and prepare for other possible conflicts.

More military spending??? Boy, he sure won't get re-elected in 2008. Is he going to give free beer away at the recruitment center to jin up support for the additional 40,000 new soldiers to the active-duty army?

4) Achieving Energy Independence From Mideast Oil

Really? by popping into our strategic oil reserve? No thanks. If you mean he'll give the go-ahead to drilling in ANWR-we may see eye to eye on at least one thing.

Kerry has a detailed plan to end America's dangerous dependence on Mideast oil to secure our full independence and freedom. Will stop using kid-gloves with countries that launder money for terrorism.

Uhoh, sounds like another name for what you are now calling Right-Wing God fearing imperialism. Hmmm, call it something different, put a (D) after the name, it's now acceptable foreign policy. Either that or you mean the dreaded "Resolution". Ooh, that word should give the international community shivers!

5) Taking the Burden off the American Military & Taxpayer

yes, indeed. By strengthening our military, including doubling our Special Forces capability to fight the war on terror; improve our technology; and task our National Guard with Homeland Security. This all sounds real cheap to me. Better hope we don't oust any Republican Congressmen before this request is made.

Kerry plans to internationalize the security and reconstruction effort by making Iraq part of NATO's global mission and by involving allies in rebuilding the country, providing troops and financial commitments.

Sounds like Kerry's plan rides on the shoulders of Bush's successful campaign in Iraq. A campaign Kerry is for, then against. The international community will not provide additional troops. Their benefit of Iraq's building economy should be slow and disciplined.

6) Planning for Iraq�s Future
Kerry has a strategy to implement an international effort to coordinate reconstruction efforts

already done. Kerry as usual is a little late.

draft the national constitution

already done.

and organize elections.

already done and happening next month.

Work with allies to forgive Iraq's multi-billion dollar debts.

already done.

Convene a regional conference with Iraq's neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in Iraq's internal affairs.

already done. At least at the level of leadership. Insurgents are insurgents. Terrorists are terrorists. They will continue to attempt disrupting peace in Iraq because they oppose it's democratization. Kerry is not some deitous rain-maker that will make all look to America for peace all of a sudden by virtue of hope in the ketchup king.

7) Building Security In Iraq

Kerry will launch a massive training effort to build a professional Iraqi security force, including a major role for NATO.

Already happening. It's not cheap I might add.

8) Fighting the War on Terrorism
Kerry will launch a bold, comprehensive strategy to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks, double our Special Forces capability to fight the war on terror, reform our intelligence, crack down on terrorist financing, secure our homeland and prevent the emergence of new terrorists.

intelligence, reformed. Reformed by an act initiated and drafted by Lieberman I might add. We've put a severe dent in terrorist financing by ousting those who stood shoulder to shoulder with Saddam in their hatred for America. Including Saddam himself. BTW, what is Kerry's plan to do the above? Does he have a platform? Does he have a strategy? A goal without a gameplan is a boat without an oar. A pipe-dream, a desire and nothing more. If you know what Kerry's gameplan is, you may want to forward it to his strategists.

9) Building Bridges to Arab and Muslim Countries
Kerry has a plan to win the war of ideas in Arab and Muslim countries.

Really? What is it?

10) Making Bold Intelligence Reforms
Kerry has a plan that demands accountability, separates analysis and operations, and creates a Director of National Intelligence with real control of all national intelligence personnel and budgets.

Repeating yourself does not somehow make your arguments more valid. Again, these are already underway. Kerry should not build his plan upon Bush's successes. This will give Americans the belief that Bush is best suited to continue on Bush's successes.

11) Protecting the Homeland Plan to keep America safe.
Kerry will give our first responders all the tools they need. Detailed port security & bio-terrorism strategies.

Really? Sounds like more spending to me. BTW, while work is needed on the above fronts, Bush is working within ways and means to achieve the desired end.

[aberdeenwriter]

Post Snipped

[Cody Dawg]

No, let's stick to this topic.

So far I haven't seen a lot of people espousing why they are voting for Kerry.

Repeating yourself does not somehow make your arguments more valid. Again, these are already underway. Kerry should not build his plan upon Bush's successes.

GREAT POINT.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

What if GWB plans to take over the WORLD?

See my post:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread....584#post2181584

Will you stop posting that damn thing? You're acting like a Troll.

[aberdeenwriter]

Ok, I'll be serious here.

I believe we need new leadership and I believe John F. Kerry is the man who can provide the leadership America needs.

One of the things that was important to the survival and success of freedom in World Wars I & II, the Cold War, the Gulf War and in Kosovo, was our strategic alliances with other nations.

Instead of going it alone, we led the efforts in the fight for freedom, backed by strong coalitions molded from a shared belief in American ideals.

As John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address:

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge�and more."

This commitment was long ingrained in our national character and our souls. It was our national ideal. What we stood for. And we took pride in standing up, being counted and making that ideal breathe life, even at the risk of our own.

As the Kerry-Edwards book, ("Our Plan For America") states, "We extended a hand, not a fist..." to our longtime allies as well as our reluctant friends.

We respected the world and, in return, earned the world's respect...not it's fear.

IMO, the world longs for that respect from us. And even now it's still not too late to regain our traditional position of leadership and respect.

The world longs for us to listen and lead as we always did. Not just impose our mighty will upon them.

The current administration has gambled away more than one hundred years of our national respect and goodwill in pursuit of an ineffective and reckless doctrine which pushes away our traditional allies and cost us the support of other nations.

Paraphrasing Kerry-Edwards, showing disregard for the world, the current administration, 'rushed to force before exhausting diplomacy. They bullied instead of persuaded.'

'They fail to understand real leadership means standing by your principles and rallying others to join you.'

John Kerry believes in an America that people in every hut and palace, every rice paddy or sand dune can admire as they once did.

An America they can look up to because they know we cherish not just our own liberties, but theirs. And not just our democracy, but their HOPE for it.

Not just our peace and security, but the world's.

Kerry believes in freedom, protecting the American people, forging new allies in this post 9/11 world and an America which commands respect.

He intends to modernize the military to better repond to the new 21st century threats to America.

In addition to military force, Kerry intends to use ALL the weapons in our national arsenal to achieve security and respect: diplomacy, intelligence systems, economic power and the appeal of our values and ideals.

He believes that despite George Bush's tough talk, the President's actions have fallen far short of accomplishing what the American people want and deserve.

The President still has no comprehensive strategy for victory. After allowing Osama bin Laden to escape in Tora Bora, the President diverted crucial resources from Afghanistan to invade Iraq.

His doctrine of unilateral pre-emption has forced us to go it alone and driven a wedge between us and our allies.

This is not to say that a "President Kerry" would ask anyone's permission to do what's best for America.

He says, "We will never, ever wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake -- but we will not alienate those whose support we should have, and must enlist, for ultimate victory" in the global war on terror.*

*Almost every paragraph is scandalously plagiarized and paraphrased from the Kerry-Edwards book because it reflects my own feelings.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
(snip)
*Almost every paragraph is scandalously plagiarized and paraphrased from the Kerry-Edwards book because it reflects my own feelings.

and, more accurately, because you can't form your own opinion and state it with any degree of clarity.

It's hilarious - and typical of what we've come to expect from Democrats as a whole.

[realitybath]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
The deficit isn't my problem.
<snip of more drivel>

sorry to interupt, but was reading through the thread, and that statement has to be the most mindless post(the gist of the whole post was the same) i've seen at this site.

[ebuddy]

Just to kind of close this thing off, I think probably the most honest answer to the thread's question was offered up by Deedar to which I'll reply;

Restore credibility and regain our national reputation.

Bush has lost credibility with the "unilateral" action in Iraq. Most of America agrees with our action in Iraq. This is not an idictment of the President, it's an indictment of the American people. Kerry can continue to separate on this and I'll admire him for his bid-busting honesty.

2. More responsible approach to combating terrorism.

By reacting to the next attack here in the States? No thanks.

3. Willing to use sound science in environmental policy decision-making.

The science of polling data and relenting to special interest groups interested in scare tactics to enhance research grants funded by our tax dollars? No thanks.

4. Honesty and trust.

You mean honesty and trust by having the "v" for valor on his website trying to augment his service with bogus accolades? Doctoring documentation as an administrator to achieve enough purple hearts to bail out on his buddies? Forwarding sloppily prepared, forged documents to CBS News in an unprecedented ad hominem smear campaign against Bush? No thanks.

5. More fiscally responsible.

You don't mean the whole "repealed tax-cut" deal do you? Do you know what he plans to do with that tax cut? I'll give you a hint; it's not going into balancing the budget. Read Kerry's plans on his own website, you'll quickly realize there's more spending in there than you even know. Certainly more spending than we have today.

6. Greater credibility as CIC

How can that be, he's not the CIC??? He certainly hasn't achieved any credibility in 20 years as Senator.

decorated war hero and outspoken voice against the war in Vietnam.

This is precisely what is damaging to his campaign. His big mouth espoused information his buddies were getting tortured for overseas. "decorated war-heroes" don't go around bragging about their service. You'd especially expect silence if this decorated war hero was an outspoken voice against the action. Shouldn't he be ashamed of himself? Shooting a fleeing boy in the back is less than honorable IMHO, but in times of war and emotion I can understand. Is this how he would react to adversity and fear as CIC? No thanks.

7. Won't let god lead us into war.

The greatest leaders of our time believed they were called to a higher duty and they attribute that calling to be that of God's. In Kerry's case, God cannot even lead him into honesty and integrity during pressure of candidacy let alone acting CIC, so it seems God leads very little in Kerry's life, of that you can rest assured.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Most of America agrees with our action in Iraq.

You keep repeating this but every poll I recall seeing has shown a steady erosion in public support for the war. The most recent one (a month ago) shows support well below 50%, and this can be expected to slide further as the situation in Iraq becomes increasingly chaotic.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...5103-7559r.htm