Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:56 am
PD~ wrote:I love how people who don't know politics or don't have facts will vote for Kerry. It's true what the media has been saying, Kerry is the lazy man's leader. I don't think people who want Kerry just because they don't want Bush realize the economic and political suicide that will come of it.
Even a significant percentage of democrats don't want him in. People, Bush is not doing that badly. His economy is steadily rising and he's keeping taxes low,
plus other nations have dismantled weapons over to us and he liberated a country by capturing a world-threatening leader, plus Bin Ladin will pop up in our custody soon (you watch).
Well over half the country is in support of the job Bush has done.
And let's even be realisitic, he's going to be re-elected by probably a significantly large margin, so get used to him, folks.
He's doing a really nice job... not great, but not a bad one.
You're probably not going to see a democrat in office for the next 16-20 years. Of course that's just an educated guess, but the country is swinging conservative and rapidly. Thank goodness, too.
Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:23 am
Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:10 pm
PD~ wrote:I don't need a crystal ball, mrmarcus, I just listen to all of Kerry's proposals. Normally a candidate will come out and tell the American people what they want to hear, but Kerry has decided to do just the opposite with his massive tax proposals and gas increases. He's also wanting to increase minimum wages, but what he isn't telling you is that inflation will have kicked in long before he could ever do that.
The spending habits of Bush aren't as dramatic as they were say 6 months ago. The economy is just fine. Everyone tries to harp on the "Bush economy." Well, there's nothing really to harp on if you check the numbers.
Besides, if you haven't noticed, we're still in a war, hence the spending.
Also, how ironic is it that on the day of the post-convention bounce for Kerry that the Bush administration drops big time information about our intelligence and how it has to do with future attacks against the nation? Oh, by the way, only a 2 point bounce for Kerry, the smallest in 30 years.
Recent polls still have Bush 49% to Kerry's 46%. What does this mean? It means that Kerry's in deep shit because if he's not leading after his convention, just think what the republican convention is going to do to him. I truely, truely believe the margin will be as large as I think it will be... Bush the winner, of course.
Bush IS the president we need in office right now. I think it rubs people the wrong way that Bush is comfortable in his own skin and also that he's extremely smug. There's nothing wrong with a laid-back sense of humor when addressing the nation on not-so-serious issues. He makes me feel extremely relaxed and not edgy, and then when he stands up and says we're going to kick terrorist ass, I throw a fist in the air and yell, "DAMN RIGHT!!"
I also find it funny that people want Bush out of there because of the entire war situation. People, Kerry voted for the war, too. Hell, he's a crazy war veteran himself. And if you didn't listen to him and Edwards speak over the last week, they want to keep on attacking terrorist groups as well, so even if Kerry does take office, nothing is really going to change as far as the war is concerned.
No hyperbole about my assumptions over the next 20 years, mrmarcus. The country doesn't swing one way or the other very often, in fact hardly ever. There's always been the old saying that 40% is conservative and 40% is liberal, it's what the other 20% are that make the country go one way or the other. I don't think that's the case anymore. I think this country is 50% conservative AT LEAST.
Then people want to talk about the 18-25 vote being very liberal. Well, in a recent Georgia poll of all colleges in Georgia, students in the 18-25 range proved to be 74% conservative. That's an astoundingly high percentage for 150,000+ votes. It does make me feel good, too.
By the way, does anyone besides me think that Edwards and Kerry might be sleeping together? They're a little too comfortable around each other.
Mon Aug 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:12 am
PD~ wrote:John Kerry has proposed a $0.52 gas price increase because he wants to "encourage" car-pool plans. Also, he's using the increase as an excuse to the so-called destruction Bush has done to overseas trading of oil (which isn't true).
Also, the rollback on the top 1% is bullshit because they pay for 90% of everything anyway. Just because someone makes a lot of money doesn't mean they should be penalized for it. Everyone should pay the same percentages.
But back to what we're talking about, Kerry said he wants to help the middle-class people more with the taxes by increasing minimum wages, but what he didn't tell you is that in order to do so, he has to jack the tax percentages up. It's common economics, you can't raise minimum wage without inflating everything else. It's all correlated. Oh yeah, not to mention that Kerry said that's what he's going to do in some of his proposal speeches in the primaries.
The economy is not that sluggish. I think everyone got spoiled by the booming "dot com" and computer businesses that jacked Clinton's economy up. Ever since then, economists have expected too much. For being in a war, our economy is way above what it probably should be.
The president is commander and chief, he doesn't need congress to declare war.
Besides, all of congress was for going into Afghanistan after the planes hit our buildings.
People care a lot about the election right now, they just don't care about Kerry.
The Repubilcan convention will get extremely higher ratings and ALL the big stations (unlike the Democratic convention) will show Bush speaking.
I'll give you a percentage number... 52% to 45%. That would be a blowout.
olitics play a tremendous role in the information the public is getting and when they get it. The Bush administration is just waiting for Kerry to talk about things so that they can rain on that parade (like the announcements made yesterday afternoon inflicting on Kerry's bounce). It sucks, but it's an electorial ploy.
Kerry is more dangerous than Bush when it comes to war tactics. He is an attack minded person, his voting record shows it and some of the things he hints at shows it. He'll bomb the hell out of people if he gets the chance to.
Saddam is done. Bin Ladin, too. Enough said about that.
Just because I feel the country is more conservative due to very recent polls doesn't mean that they'll automatically vote for Bush. I know some conservatives that won't vote for Kerry or Bush, they'll find a third party to vote for. So no, conservatives are not mindless sheep, they're smart sheep.
Well, that V-Tech poll that you saw shows more conservatives than liberals. Sounds good to me.
How is 51% Liberal vs. 44% Conservative more conservatives than liberals? It's called coffee. Have a cup or two.No, I would never vote for someone who was homosexual or bisexual despite their qualifications for office. I'm anti-gay marraige, anti-abortion, pro-life... I'm a republican. Besides, it's states in the qualifications for president that you have to be at least 35 years of age, you have to be a natural born American citizen, and you have to be married.
You don't have to be married. James Buchanan (15th President) was a bachelor. I think it's just been so long since a bachelor ran for President that's been thought of as de facto qualification even though nothing in the Constitution states such.Since gay marraige isn't nationally accepted, it wouldn't matter anyway. Besides, a very small percentage of people actually accept homosexuality as being okay or even being comfortable with it. I'm sure not too many people want to see their leader holding another man's hand.
Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:08 am
Quote:
The president is commander and chief, he doesn't need congress to declare war.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution.
"The Congress shall have the Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; "
Quote:
Besides, all of congress was for going into Afghanistan after the planes hit our buildings.
Afghanistan, not Iraq.
What will happen is the Republican convention will get the same treatment from CNN that the Democratic convention got from FOX News.
So much for the fair and impartial media, eh? Someone could make money if they came up with a news channel that just reported things instead of doing lots of spin jobs.
1996 - Clinton defeats Dole 49% - 41%
1988 - Bush defeats Dukakis 53% - 46%
1984 - Reagan defeats Mondale 59% - 40%
1972 - Nixon defeats McGovern 61% - 37%
1964 - LBJ defeats Goldwater 61% - 39%
I dobut we'll see a true blowout in this day and age.
Strange - you applaud Bush for "going in and kicking ass" yet bemoan Kerry for the same.
How is 51% Liberal vs. 44% Conservative more conservatives than liberals? It's called coffee. Have a cup or two. Grin
You don't have to be married. James Buchanan (15th President) was a bachelor. I think it's just been so long since a bachelor ran for President that's been thought of as de facto qualification even though nothing in the Constitution states such.
Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:46 am
PD~ wrote:Yes, I'm well aware that Congress has the power, but that's not what I was getting at. I said the president doesn't need congress to declare war himself.
Ehhh, that's what I said. The Iraq situation was entirely different and it's not like Congress wasn't for it, they really weren't given a choice in the matter, but they were behind the president once declaration was made.
Actually, CNN was Kerry bashing during his convention as well. And before people hate on FOX, what you have to pick up on is that they don't "spin job" you, all they do is ask questions and then the people they ask the questions to get themselves in trouble, specifically democrats because democrats are well known for never answering a tough question directly, instead they stray onto something else because they know they don't have an answer or a good answer at that to the question at hand, and that's why they don't like dealing with FOX. FOX will ask the same questions to the republicans, the only difference is the republicans will answer those questions with confidence and it will appear as if though FOX is just sucking up to them, and I really don't believe that is the case. In fact, more than half the employers of FOX are liberal (i.e. Shep Smith, Gretta, Colmes, Britt Hume)... even O'Reilley is libertarian.
So what these numbers tell me is that elections are becoming closer and closer with each one, which is why I considered the numbers I guessed will happen would be considered a blowout.
No, if you forgot why I even brought that point up is because I was shunning the people who are backing Kerry because they are against Bush and the war. Kerry is going to do the same thing. You say it's because we're in too deep, but Kerry voted for the war to start with, so he would have done the same thing if he were in office then. So again, no I'm not getting on Kerry for his mentality because I'm for the war myself, I'm getting on the people who want Kerry so badly just because of the war issue.
Yeah, sorry about that. Damn Virginians.
Well, I'm not big on my early American history, and maybe it wasn't a law then or maybe he found a way around it, but I do know that now you have to be married.
Tue Aug 03, 2004 2:19 pm
Nope. There is nothing that forbids single men (via bachelorism or being a widower) from running for President. The only requirements as listed in the Constitution are 35 years of age, natural-born citizen and resident in the country for at least the previous 14 years.
Tue Aug 03, 2004 2:29 pm
PD~ wrote:Nope. There is nothing that forbids single men (via bachelorism or being a widower) from running for President. The only requirements as listed in the Constitution are 35 years of age, natural-born citizen and resident in the country for at least the previous 14 years.
I researched it and you're correct. I'm not sure where I figured you had to be married, I might have just drawn that conclusion myself since all but 3 presidents have been married.
Tue Aug 03, 2004 2:55 pm
Wed Aug 04, 2004 5:48 am
Wed Aug 04, 2004 10:18 am
Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:38 pm
Tue Sep 14, 2004 4:53 pm
Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:14 pm
Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:46 pm
Wed Sep 15, 2004 10:19 am
Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:02 am
Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:20 am
Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:14 am
Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:35 am
Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:47 am
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.