President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief [Archive] - Politics & Current Affairs - Archive Forum 2004

View Full Version : President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

kramsret

07-10-2004, 12:41 AM

President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief
July 7, 2004

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.

1. Social Security Surplus

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

2. Patient's Right to Sue

GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]

...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]

...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]

3. Tobacco Buyout

BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

4. North Korea

BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

5. Abortion

BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

6. OPEC

BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

7. Iraq Funding

BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

9. Science

BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

10. Ahmed Chalabi

BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

11. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

12. Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

13. Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

14. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

15. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

16. WMD Commission

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

20. Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

21. Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

23. U.N. Resolution

BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

25. Campaign Finance

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

ninjalooter1701

07-10-2004, 12:58 AM

PREDICTION: Bobboi, Thaanatos, Elalumno, and Justin will avoid this thread like the plague.

If they post it is to refute a tangential idea rather than address the main post.

Any takers on this bet?

Fredfredson

07-10-2004, 01:16 AM

Nope

:lol

F
:pooter

07-10-2004, 01:59 AM

This same crap gets posted every few weeks and every few weeks time is wasted replying.

Please just go read some old threads ...

Thanks

jpn of Seattle

07-10-2004, 02:55 AM

Please vote for George W. Bush in November
So we can piss off the entire world while undermining the effort against terrorism by launching a war on false pretenses?
So we can ruin our national future by hugely expanding the debt with tax cuts for the rich?

Oh yeah, I'm running right out to vote for this incompetent boob.

ninjalooter1701

07-10-2004, 03:32 AM

This same crap gets posted every few weeks and every few weeks time is wasted replying.

Please just go read some old threads ...

Thanks
Yeah, it's "Crap" because it's the truth, truth that portrays the president in a less than favorable light, so it's "liberal media..."

It's why other countries laugh at stupid American hicks...AKA Bushvoters.

kramsret

07-10-2004, 05:09 AM

ninjalooter1701

07-10-2004, 07:49 AM

bobboi has run the full gamut of what reich wingers do when confronted with facts that cross their warped worldview:

1 - Change the subject

2 - Attack the messenger

3 - Remind everyone how Bill Clinton is slick

4 - Say, "Hey, this has been posted three times already! No need to respond AGAIN!"
You forgot, "Post picture of ketchup bottle."

Also, change #4 to read, "I've already been owned on this topic 3 times already, and 3 strikes and I am out, like a Texas Ranger..."

07-10-2004, 08:12 AM

sorry not going to be baited into this, thanks for the insults.

Atenhotep

07-10-2004, 08:23 AM

sorry not going to be baited into this, thanks for the insults.

Or you could actually respond to the tremendously long list of outrageous flip flops by Bush with a bit of honesty and hope to start earning yourself some credibility.

Just a thought.

07-10-2004, 08:54 AM

ninjalooter1701

07-10-2004, 09:40 AM

There is no point, as your minds are made up aleready. I do not have the will nor the time to refute the same crap that is posted every couple of weeks. In reality this post by kramset is spam, and should just be deleted.

http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=326&highlight=flipflops

http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=256&highlight=flipflops

http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=165&highlight=flipflops

I will expect to see the same thread in a few weeks when this one falls off the first few pages.
Yeah,
http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=2406
(Moore's propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation)

http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=2437
(San Francisco rolls out the red carpet for the Clintons)

Need I really continue, Thaanatos/Bobboi?

Atenhotep

07-10-2004, 11:45 AM

There is no point, as your minds are made up aleready. I do not have the will nor the time to refute the same crap that is posted every couple of weeks. In reality this post by kramset is spam, and should just be deleted. I will expect to see the same thread in a few weeks when this one falls off the first few pages.

Minds are made up about what?

That the GOP Character Assassination Machine trys to paint Kerry as a guy that can't make up his mind and claims Bush provides steady leadership?

There's no propaganda here. None of the positions on that list were invented by the Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy.

The neocons and the Christian Coalition have destroyed the GOP.

The Republican Party had principles at one time but those days are long gone.

kramsret

07-10-2004, 02:48 PM

LOL!!!!!

Poor wittwe bobboi. It must hurt to be such a fool.

George Bush is SUCH a flip flopper--he's such the MOTHER OF ALL flip floppers--that we've had FOUR threads--all different--talking about it.

And to bobboi, it's "spam", that he need not worry about or respond to.

It is absolutely breathtaking to witness how far these guys will go to deny reality. It takes a mighty long neck to bury his head so deep in the sand.

goddesscon

07-10-2004, 04:47 PM

This is just a snippet from the article... last time I posted a full article...no one responded :(

Foreign Policy: Flexible or Feckless? - Bush has often changed tacks on issues from Iraq to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to North Korea's nukes. Will voters care?

The surprise early handover of sovereignty to Iraq on June 28 was just the latest of a series of foreign-policy shifts by President Bush. The previous week saw a flip-flop on talks with North Korea. After years of stonewalling, the Administration, under intense allied pressure, dangled before Pyongyang some notions of how the North could benefit from abandoning its nuclear programs. The Bush team initially insisted it wouldn't offer any carrots until after Pyongyang dismantled all its programs, but the only result of the hard line was time for Kim Jong-Il to reprocess spent fuel to make more bombs -- not something in Washington's interest.

With foreign policy becoming a more critical issue in the Presidential campaign than at any time since the Vietnam War, a key question is who benefits from these policy swings? Is it President Bush, for whom this could be a Clintonesque triangulation? That would co-opt presumptive challenger John F. Kerry's positions and leave him little room for criticism. After all, the moves put Kerry in the unenviable position of being able to say he's glad Bush finally is following his advice.

Or do the shifts hurt Bush, giving him less standing to criticize Kerry for waffling, and tarnishing his image as a steadfast, principled leader who doesn't give in?

KERRY'S SWITCHES. The Bush Administration's foreign policy has seen endless changes on everything from Iraq to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The White House was dismissive of any U.N. Security Council role in Iraq, then trudged up to the U.N. repeatedly to plead for support. The President was going to abrogate the ABM Treaty unilaterally to move ahead with missile defense without negotiations with Russia, then pivoted and negotiated a pact with Moscow.

The preemption doctrine -- which may not have had any application except in Iraq in the first place -- is now an even more apparent dead letter. America's stretched military is utterly incapable now of operations in such places as Iran or North Korea. The list of pirouettes goes on and on, many of them dictated by the caving-in of Administration ideology in the face of reality.

The impact -- if any -- of all this won't be known until Election Day. But there are some tantalizing hints. Several pollsters I talked to said it's likely that only experts and policy wonks like me are aware of the details of the twists and turns in Bush's foreign policy. It's also likely, I think, that the Bush-Cheney campaign's PR machine has worked overtime to make voters aware of Kerry's various positions on Iraq.

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=8570

Silver

07-10-2004, 04:54 PM

There is no point, as your minds are made up aleready. I do not have the will nor the time to refute the same crap that is posted every couple of weeks. In reality this post by kramset is spam, and should just be deleted.

http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=326&highlight=flipflops

http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=256&highlight=flipflops

http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=165&highlight=flipflops

I will expect to see the same thread in a few weeks when this one falls off the first few pages.

Keep the Links, Bobboi. You will need them again. Have you ever noticed how it is usually these Liberals who are supposed to be so caring about other people who in turn reduce these threads to personal insults? If you don't agree with them then here comes the name calling and use of insulting adjectives for the poster rather than the opinion. Rather revealing, isn't it?

Anonymous Idiot Savant

07-10-2004, 04:54 PM

So, does "respond to the post and not the poster" apply to all or just some of the posters?

goddesscon

07-10-2004, 05:08 PM

Silver....
You are still fairly new here... I have been trying to get people to respond to topics and posts as opposed to the poster...I fear that this is a losing battle...
However, you will find after reading his posts that bobboi gets what he gets because of his posting style...aside from the fact that all of our posters seem to be extremely passionate about thier opinions it is not a possibility of telling them what and how to post...
Please leave the administering to the adminsistrators...we will spank them normally in Private message.. if you enjoy his posts...by all means read them and the links..

Now back to the thread...
Bush is flip flopping just like EVERY politician and it is about time that BOTH sides recognize this...
The article I posted went through the things Bush has flipped and flopped on kind of like Krams first post...
but I doubt anyone who leans to the right will even READ the article...

thaanatos

07-10-2004, 05:32 PM

I have to admit, personally I am getting a bit fed up with one sided 'administration'......why are your comments directed at Silver, instead of at the folks who posted personal comments?

goddesscon

07-10-2004, 06:09 PM

Thaan... I am tired of YOU crawling up my ass every time I post something...
You want to run your own board go for it..
I directed my comments at Sliver because she is new ...I have also made it clear to all posters I am tired of the personal attacks... what do you want me to do ??? BAN everyone???
So basically... :bleh
I have not changed my stance on the ONE guideline...address the post NOT the poster..but no matter how many times I say it..NO one listens...
So...I am addressing YOUR post... Get off my back...

07-10-2004, 07:16 PM

When everyone that is not a liberal notices your bias continuing to deny it is useless, so Embrass your bias.

I have been attacked personally here but of course this post will cause me to get a "time out" or perm banned again. :rofl

ninjalooter1701

07-10-2004, 07:22 PM

Anonymous Idiot Savant

07-10-2004, 07:24 PM

And this is why self governing in this area is probably the best way to go. These problems tend to work themselves out, they have in the past on this forum.

I bet you can't wait till you have a bunch of little diglets running around the house no?

;)

07-10-2004, 07:25 PM

ketel fought back and cursed and insulted right back at those that attacked him non stop. For this he was banned by our lib mods! So your point is that you agree thier is a lib bias here?

ninjalooter1701

07-10-2004, 07:27 PM

ketel fought back and cursed and insulted right back at those that attacked him non stop. For this he was banned by our lib mods! So your point is that you agree thier is a lib bias here?
Gosh, why did they attack him non stop?

Why did he post as you at times, with posts barely recognizable as English except for the salient profanity?

Why don't you show Silver some of these posts, you know, show her the truth that you are always willing to defend...

Anonymous Idiot Savant

07-10-2004, 07:27 PM

I have been attacked personally here but of course this post will cause me to get a "time out" or perm banned again.

Well bobbi, you see it's like this.

If you were in a bar, and some guy kept annoying you and he started saying "hit me! hit me! come on I know want to! huh huh huh! do it!"

If you were that annoying guy, would you complain if the other guy hit you?

:pooter

ninjalooter1701

07-10-2004, 07:28 PM

07-10-2004, 07:30 PM

Anonymous Idiot Savant

07-10-2004, 07:30 PM

I was asking bobbi :)

ninjalooter1701

07-10-2004, 07:32 PM

07-10-2004, 07:33 PM

Well bobbi, you see it's like this.

If you were in a bar, and some guy kept annoying you and he started saying "hit me! hit me! come on I know want to! huh huh huh! do it!"

If you were that annoying guy, would you complain if the other guy hit you?

Again personal attacks against me. I am waiting for my warning for sitting here and piointing out each personal attack

ninjalooter1701

07-10-2004, 07:35 PM

Anonymous Idiot Savant

07-10-2004, 07:36 PM

No, it was an honast question in response to your post that I quoted. Perhpahs I sould have left the, :rofl ,in your post when I quoted it.

If it wasn't for the, :rofl ,at the end I wouldn't have even bothered to respond.

ninjalooter1701

07-10-2004, 07:39 PM

Ninja do you even read my posts?

I have told ketel to calm down and just ignore kramset, atens, and your attacks but he just decieded to fight back.

Notice each thread started ends up with the "liberals" attacking people that disagree with them. Seriously go look at the threads and try to say there is no clear cut bias there.
True, it starts with the "liberals" attacking people, after the liberals present fact after fact, right wing contradiction after contradiction, to wingers who can't or won't read information presented to their very faces.

Perhaps a Cheney quote is appropriate about now.

07-10-2004, 07:40 PM

ninjalooter1701

07-10-2004, 07:44 PM

Do you guys enjoy proving my points? You can say whatever you want to anyone you want with no reprecusions. When a conservative person strays from a post's topic they are told to get back on topic. When a liberal starts their insults on conservatives, the conservative is told not to respond, and is warned if he does.
Maybe if the conservatives would actually read the posts and reply with something other than a dogmatic sound clip or a Bible quote, say, with reason and logic and an educated opinion, then there'd be good discussion going on.

Justin6898

07-10-2004, 07:55 PM

FYI, I've been gone for a couple days, I haven't been avoiding the thread...;)

Also, I pretty much skimmed through every post after the first few, so I'm not sure if the subject has changed or not...

Anyway, now on to the topic. I think, Krammie, we've pretty well established that most politicians are flip-floppers, yes...even Bush... :wave

My Problem with John Kerry, is that he moved all, or at least most of his beliefs to the center starting around a year before he announced he was running for President. That smells...to me at least. It tells me he doesn't really believe in most of the stuff he's preaching about on the campaign trail.

-Justin

kramsret

07-10-2004, 09:22 PM

I'm getting this welling-up feeling that bobboi is about 16 years old.

Just a guess. Give or take.....a month.

07-10-2004, 10:04 PM

I'm getting this welling-up feeling that bobboi is about 16 years old.

Just a guess. Give or take.....a month.

Screw it I am sick of the insults, so Kramset go [****] edited by mod yourself. Ok now you can come down with all the hell and fury of moderators.

Atenhotep

07-10-2004, 10:12 PM

[..previous quotes removed..]

Keep the Links, Bobboi. You will need them again. Have you ever noticed how it is usually these Liberals who are supposed to be so caring about other people who in turn reduce these threads to personal insults? If you don't agree with them then here comes the name calling and use of insulting adjectives for the poster rather than the opinion. Rather revealing, isn't it?

I hope this helps you:

http://www.replacements.com/images/tableware_storage/silver_polish.jpg

And when you're all cleaned up ...

Here's a Conservative board where the mods regularly say things like, "the right way to look at it, you scum sucking liberal dogs"

The Naked Conservative (http://p072.ezboard.com/bthenakedconservative)

Bobboi, you'll notice I have not insulted you in this thread. I just try to stay the hell away from you and hope you'll do the same.

I really do feel that you would be much happier at "The Naked Conservative." They really are better suited for your level of debate.

As far as ketel, that's the most ridiculous defenses I've ever heard.

Ketel was calling me a pedophile that liked to fuck little boys in the asses.

What I AM sick of is the victim routine from you bobboi. You're just a troll in my opinion but so long as you keep your games out of my threads I don't care.

http://www.ourchurch-graphics.com/member/t/twilacrump/0a1.jpg

God's favorite President .... oh my oh my ....

True Christians Unite (http://p203.ezboard.com/ftruechristiansunitefrm1)

WELCOME TO THE NO SPIN ZONE OF CHRISTIANITY! HEAR IT THE WAY GOD INTENDED!!!

WARNING: If you are UnSaved, the full-force of God's Love may be too much for your delicate sensibilities. If so, LEAVE NOW!!! Under 18? NOT WELCOME!!!

We believe that the only way for a person to go to heaven, is through repentance toward God, and accepting Jesus Christ, by faith, as God’s gift of salvation to fallen man (Jn. 14:6; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Pet. 3:9; Acts 17:30). Man cannot, in any way, save himself. Salvation is totally of the Lord (Titus 3:5; Rom. 3:24,28; Eph. 1:3-9).

So, sending everyone to HELL that doesn’t buy into a specific bullshit religion seems a bit “HATEFUL” to me but then again, I have the farts today so I’m going to shove a few cinnamon stick in my rectum to control the smell.

Atenhotep

07-10-2004, 10:22 PM

Justin, tremendous honesty in your post.

I question this:

My Problem with John Kerry, is that he moved all, or at least most of his beliefs to the center starting around a year before he announced he was running for President. That smells...to me at least. It tells me he doesn't really believe in most of the stuff he's preaching about on the campaign trail.

Bush claimed he was a moderate, that he was a uniter, he claimed chocolate trees would grow in our backyards if we voted for him. He said anything he thought America wanted to hear to get elected and he has been none of those things.

Kerry moved to the middle to please America and as President he will stay there.

Bush claimed to be in the middle and has NEVER been there.

Jayne B

07-10-2004, 10:25 PM

My Problem with John Kerry, is that he moved all, or at least most of his beliefs to the center starting around a year before he announced he was running for President. That smells...to me at least. It tells me he doesn't really believe in most of the stuff he's preaching about on the campaign trail.

What a lot of the rest of us (those who were paying close attention during 1998-2000) see is that Bush, after years of non-compassionate, indeed downright unfriendly to the poor and disadvantaged, conservative actions as Governor of Texas, started talking a great line about his 'Compassionate Conservative' ambitions for all of the country.... not long before HE announced he was running.

Those of us who worried that Bush would revert to his hard-right type immediately on being elected certainly understand Justin's concern that Kerry will swing Left once he's in power.

The difference is, we don't all think that's a bad thing for the country... ESPECIALLY after the mess Bush has made, both domestically and in foreign affairs.

His conflicting messages to North Korea alone have made that side of the world a MUCH more dangerous place. First, he refused to negotiate a new nuclear agreement, even though Clinton left him a framework that had taken years to establish. THEN he started draining forces from Korea to support the messes his foreign policy made in Afghanistan and Iraq... that told NK that the risk of the US backing its non-negotiation policy with real force was minimial. THEN he backpedaled on the no-negotiation policy and is trying to re-invoke a framework that is essentially Clinton's in everything but the name on the front cover.... except NOW NK knows the US is rudderless and militarily stretched, so NK is holding out for MUCH BETTER TERMS than it would have been forced to accept 3 years ago.

I read this morning an AP report from South Korea that indicates the North is moving missiles into positions that can threaten US bases in Japan and the South. Bush's flipflop on NK could yet cost a pile of American lives and peripheral casualties.

Add to the foreign policy messes the fiascos of stripping Social Security, underfunding No Child Left Behind, cutting veterans affairs health funding and planning to close a few VA hospitals (just when the supply of veterans in dire need of health care is increasing exponentially), and resolutely NOT letting an extension of unemployment benefits get through Congress before the summer recess... and it would take a FAR LEFT Administration - much farther Left that Kerry has ever gone despite the 'liberal' tag - two or three terms JUST to get the country back to the centrist position that is really the optimum for the vast majority of the US's 300 million citizens.

A Massecheussetts (sp?) liberal REALLY can't make as much mess as Bush has, even if he swings a little further Left after the election.

Justin6898

07-10-2004, 11:51 PM

Kerry moved to the middle to please America and as President he will stay there.
If John Kerry has to create a set of new beliefs to get elected President, he shouldn't be running at all. As President, he would have to make decisions on the basis of his beliefs, not on what he believes will be the most popular.

Bush claimed to be in the middle and has NEVER been there.
First of all, no candidate is going to come out and say: Yes, I'm a far right/left conservative/liberal.
Second, I believe the President, as a Republican, is far to liberal. He spends too much and he seems to be pushing a "nanny-state".

A Massecheussetts (sp?) liberal REALLY can't make as much mess as Bush has, even if he swings a little further Left after the election.
Why do you say that? If Kerry is elected, we'd have to wait four years to see whether he makes any mess at all. You may have your predictions, but nobody can tell the future.

-Justin

ninjalooter1701

07-11-2004, 12:20 AM

If John Kerry has to create a set of new beliefs to get elected President, he shouldn't be running at all. As President, he would have to make decisions on the basis of his beliefs, not on what he believes will be the most popular.
Do you have a problem with Bush's changed beliefs, or are those all OK?

Justin6898

07-11-2004, 12:27 AM

ninjalooter1701

07-11-2004, 12:33 AM

Do you have a problem with Bush's changed beliefs, or are those all OK?
I'm going to have to play the "I didn't pay attention then" card. ;) Maybe you can fill me in on some of his changed beliefs?

-Justin
I mentioned earlier that the Right-Wing doesn't read posts, they just continually ask questions, as if they can't read what has just been written before them. I present the quoted (above) post as "Case In Point, in a thread titled President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief, in which 25 stances of George Bush's changing opinions were cited, yet somehow missed by Justin6898.

How does this CONTINUALLY and REPEATEDLY and INFINITELY happen?

lily

07-11-2004, 12:36 AM

2. Patient's Right to Sue

I thought the Supreme court decided on this one?

Jayne, you pretty much said it all........but that's never stopped me :cheers

If John Kerry has to create a set of new beliefs to get elected President, he shouldn't be running at all. As President, he would have to make decisions on the basis of his beliefs, not on what he believes will be the most popular.

Are we so used to Bush making decisions on his beliefs, that we think this is normal? Wouldn't it be odd, if we actually had a president that did what the people put him in there for? On the other hand, a presidential candidate that thinks one of his "power statements" is we got better hair??? :dunno

Why do you say that? If Kerry is elected, we'd have to wait four years to see whether he makes any mess at all. You may have your predictions, but nobody can tell the future.

That also used to be the norm. The first term of the presidency USED to be all he did was campaign for re-election and not actually do anything until his second term..............but the just look at the sate of affairs Bush has put this country in in just his FIRST term of office. Sorry, Justin, I don't want to be around for part two, it's too scary a thought.

Also Justin keep in mind........just how many die hard republicans are jumping ship?

Jayne B

07-11-2004, 01:38 AM

He didn't really BELIEVE those, so he didn't REALLY change.... he just SOUNDED like he changed, for long enough to get a close election...

Why Justin thinks Kerry's slight central shift is a change any more real or to be taken seriously than Bush's far-center shift in 2000, I'm not sure. Perhaps he'll enlighten us.

lily

07-11-2004, 01:48 AM

Jayne, that's a little unfair. Unless my guess is off, this just might be Justin's first election. He has the rest f his life to figure out what we already know..............NO POLOTICIAN can be trusted :cheers It's just picking out which lies you choose to believe, 'cuz they'll tell you what ever you want to hear. What I can't understand though is Justin seems like such a smart man, I can't see how in good conscience he can vote for Bush, seeing what he has done to this country, singlehandedly.http://www.paranoidtruth.com/bboards/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif

Jayne B

07-11-2004, 02:00 AM

What I see is an intelligent person deliberately ducking the facts in order to keep pushing his own political viewpoint (Justin, not you, Lily).

If Justin is really too young to remember what the country was like before Bush, OR to have noted how far Bush's approval ratings AND the economy had ALREADY fallen by September 10, 2001, and he STILL hasn't figured out that he might have a few gaps in his knowledge that would bear filling in - by his OWN efforts rather than by the suspect sources offered by total strangers in cyberspace - then he's too young to be allowed out on the internet without a Net Nanny.

I have my own children to raise.

jpn of Seattle

07-11-2004, 03:24 AM

Lilly wrote:
Jayne, that's a little unfair. Unless my guess is off, this just might be Justin's first election. He has the rest f his life to figure out what we already know..............NO POLOTICIAN can be trusted It's just picking out which lies you choose to believe, 'cuz they'll tell you what ever you want to hear.

I think citizens need to take a little more responsibility than this. To say that all politicians are liars is too glib. Most politicians, after some years in public office, have built up a record that is pretty plain to anyone who takes the time to examine it.
Kerry is pretty liberal on social issues, very mainstream on economic issues (and what I like is that he hews pretty closely to what mainstream economic accademics would recommend), and somewhat conservative on national security issues (he thinks we should stay in Iraq, for example, while a number of liberals like Kucinich say pull out now).
So you shouldn't be surprised by Kerry's stands on the issues.

Bush's record was pretty clear in 2000, and it was also clear that he was lying about it, even though the "liberal press" chose not to report his obvious departures from the truth. After a pretty conservative record in Texas, he campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000. The campaign was designed to take the rough edge of his quite conservative stands on issues. So he said he was for a patient's bill of rights even though he did everything he could as Governor to block one in Texas.

I'll list a number of issues from the 2000 election in my next post.

Bet you can't wait.

jpn of Seattle

07-11-2004, 03:33 AM

Bush said during the debates with Gore, "I'm telling you, we care about our people in Texas.... We spend $4.7 billion a year on the uninsured in the state of Texas."
As governor, Bush fought unsuccessfully to limit access to the Children's Health Insurance Program (or CHIPs), a federally financed initiative to provide health coverage for children through state governments. Bush would have limited its coverage to children in Texas with family incomes up to 150 percent of the poverty level, though federal law permitted up to 200 percent.
The point here is not whether or not health care for kids is important. The point is that Bush pretends that it's important to him rather than defending his actual beliefs and actual actions.

jpn of Seattle

07-11-2004, 03:53 AM

In 2000 Bush rather famously declared that he would slash taxes, balance the budget, not touch the Social Security trust fund, and still have enough left over to "save" Medicare.
The only thing he really cared about, in the end, was slashing taxes. And he couldn't even be honest about that. He promised that the vast majority of his tax cut would go to those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
He lied.

jpn of Seattle

07-11-2004, 03:56 AM

During the debates Bush declared that he supported a Hate Crime law. But while Governor he did everything he could to stop the Texas hate crime law.
Why not just be honest with the public and explain why he's against the law?
Because he was trying to pretend to the public that he was something he wasn't.
He lies.
About public policies.
That affect you and me.
All the time.

That's why Iraq shouldn't have surprised us.

Anonymous Idiot Savant

07-11-2004, 06:10 AM

To sum this whole thing up it is appallingly clear that this years election is a case of the following.

Picking the lesser of two evils.

Going with the devil you do know or the one you don't know.

Luckily for me I'm a white male. So I don't have to factor in the fact that neither of these two honestly care about minorities.

On one hand Bush doesn't try too hard to hide this fact. So you could say at least he's honest.

On the other hand you have Kerry who comes off insincere with shit like I want to be the next "black" president. Which is really a slap in the face.

So you're left with these two questions.

Has Bush done anything special that warrants a 2nd term? Does his good balance out his bad?

Has Kerry done anything to prove that he would make a good president? Does he inspire confidence in you that he'll get the job done?

For me the answers to all these questions are more or less no.

Sometimes it sucks being an American and right now I would vigorously endorse Toolman's canident, Mr. None of the Above.

Atenhotep

07-11-2004, 06:38 AM

I liked your Stop the Vote 2004 Idea the best so far.

BTW - This ongoing drama with bobboi ... I now know what it reminds me of ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!

DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!

DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here
that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing
me, you saw it didn't you?

:rofl

HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!!

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

Anonymous Idiot Savant

07-11-2004, 08:54 AM

You might like these bumper stickers.

http://irregularoo.com/repressed.gif

http://irregularnews.com/stickers/may415.gif

http://irregularnews.com/stickers/may417.gif

http://irregularnews.com/stickers/may413.gif

http://irregularoo.com/regime.gif

http://irregularoo.com/ifyoucanreadthis1.gif

http://irregularoo.com/friendlyfasc.gif

http://irregularnews.com/stickers/me23.gif

lily

07-11-2004, 08:52 PM

Sometimes it sucks being an American and right now I would vigorously endorse Toolman's canident, Mr. None of the Above.

See, now this is what I don't understand. We sit and complain, we think we have to try and decide who is the best liar. How is a vote for Nader a vote for Bush and not a vote for Nader? I see it as a vote saying we NEED a third party. I'm not up that much on Nader, at least as much as I was his first time around, but so far I KNOW I'm NOT voting Bush. Kerry hasn't done or said anything that has impressed me. Isn't it time for a third party? And how are we ever going to get a third party if we don't vote for one?

Anonymous Idiot Savant

07-12-2004, 02:56 AM

And that's the rub.

Rule #1 People like a winner. This is how Kerry managed to win the democratic nomination. Some guy comes up and says "hey I served with you in Nam! you're a great american!" Kerry wins Iowa. The he wins Mass. after Dean shoots himself in foot.

Don't you remember during the primairys everyone was talking about "electibility" during the live coverage CNN, MSNBC, etc would poll people leaving the voting areas. Remember how many people said things like "I really like what Dean had to say and I agree with his message, I just don't think he's electible anymore"...

The democratic party has gone and made the same mistake the Republicans did in 2000.

But who knows, maybe this IS the best America has to offer these days. :/

Basically this time around we are being scared into NOT voting for a 3rd party canidate. Do you want to take the chance that your vote for Nader, instead of Kerry, could be the deciding factor for your states electoral votes?

This is why many people will not vote for Nader. That and too many mindless drones towing the party line.

lily

07-12-2004, 04:10 AM

Well, so far the only thing Kerry has going for him at least IMPOV is he's not running negative ads.

jpn of Seattle

07-12-2004, 04:23 AM

See, now this is what I don't understand. We sit and complain, we think we have to try and decide who is the best liar. How is a vote for Nader a vote for Bush and not a vote for Nader? I see it as a vote saying we NEED a third party.

I don't understand the quandry here.
Are you for a woman's right to chose? If yes vote Kerry, if no vote Bush.
Are you for more tax cuts for the rich? If yes vote Bush, if no vote Kerry.
Are you for promoting international cooperation in solving problems such as violence, AIDS, environmental issues, trade, etc? If yes, vote Kerry, if no, vote Bush.
Are you for using the tools of government to provide a helping hand to people in need? If yes vote Kerry, if no vote Bush.
Are you for reasonable controls on guns, such as assault rifles and registration prior to purchase? If yes vote Kerry, if no vote Bush.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. I read this crap about character and quite frankly it doesn't mean much to me. It would be nice if the President that I support had a good character, but it's far more important to me that he would have, for example, a commitment to somehow making health care more affordable. And if today you really don't know which of the two candidates would be more committed to doing that, then you're just not doing your homework.
Fortunately, I tend to think Kerry has a fine character despite a $90-million ad campaign by the Bushies to make us think otherwise. Frankly, I question the character of Bush, as my posts above suggest, and I KNOW that Cheney is a sick bastard, but even that isn't why I don't vote for them.
I don't vote for them because the choice between the two campaigns with respect to crucial public policy is dramatic, and it is crystal clear.
To anyone paying attention.

jpn of Seattle

07-12-2004, 04:26 AM

jpn of Seattle

07-12-2004, 04:32 AM

How is a vote for Nader a vote for Bush and not a vote for Nader?
Because in the real world the campaign is between Bush and Kerry. The reason that the GOP is helping Nader get on the ballot in states like Oregon is because they know that votes for Nader are votes taken from Kerry.

We don't have a proportional representation election system where every candidate that garners a certain portion of the vote gets representation. We live with a winner-take-all election system in which the person getting one more electoral vote than anyone else wins it all. This creates the condition where both parties vie for the middle of the political spectrum, trying to appeal to moderates who straddle the undecided middle.

I prefer proportional representation systems since it gives more choice. But since we don't have that, then we need to recognize what we do have and make our choices accordingly. I've made mine.
http://shop3.kerrygear.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/Vbumpersticker-tn.gif

elalumno

07-12-2004, 02:11 PM

PREDICTION: Bobboi, Thaanatos, Elalumno, and Justin will avoid this thread like the plague.

If they post it is to refute a tangential idea rather than address the main post.

Any takers on this bet?

:lol

niiny, you are such a dipshit.

Once again we see your typical partisan, hate filled crap. Once again we see that all you proffer is hate and the standard bullshit that anyone that disagrees with your hate and your lies somehow supports Bush. I guess dismissing people by claiming they are Bush supporters is the best you can do.

So what do you want me to say about krammies list?

That Bush, a politician, has lied?

Gee, what a dramatic revelation and surprise?

That Bush, a politician, has taken positions on issues to gain votes and then flip flopped?

Gee, what a dramatic revelation and surprise?

I’ll make it really easy for you. Take your meds, get an adult to help you and then read this VERY SLOWLY.

I don’t support Bush.

See, the difference between you and your lame buddies here and me is that I don't take a blind partisan view of life and support or critique someone solely based on party affiliation.

Dave

07-12-2004, 02:13 PM

I don’t support Bush.

I would have to agree after frequenting the same forums as El for going on two years now, he no way supports Bush.

goddesscon

07-12-2004, 02:18 PM

I'm with ya Daav...El is not a Bush supporter...
I haven't known him for as long as you but I have read his responses...
Good on you El...
Hope you find a good choice when you vote this year...

elalumno

07-12-2004, 02:38 PM

Hope you find a good choice when you vote this year...

Well if there is one, please let me know. Right now my dog is the leading choice for a write in.

I am really getting tired of having to vote for the lesser of two shitty choices.

lily

07-12-2004, 09:06 PM

Well, so far the only thing Kerry has going for him at least IMPOV is he's not running negative ads.

So the fact that Bush had the federal government denying that condoms prevent sexually transmitted diseases means nothing to you? Do you pay attention to policy at all?

Yes I do and I posted about it on THAT thread. Don't presume that just because I am undecided and think that Nader just might be the better candidate and it's way past time we had a third party, that I'm not paying attention or dumb.

Your little yes and no post was quite amusing, but so far I haven't heard too much on how he is planning on doing this OR as someone somewhere around here said Kerry was going to give us World Peace. :/

Yes I have been to his sight and I stil don't see the answers I want. I see lots of promises, but no answers.

Because in the real world the campaign is between Bush and Kerry. The reason that the GOP is helping Nader get on the ballot in states like Oregon is because they know that votes for Nader are votes taken from Kerry.

As opposed from votes being taken away from Bush?

jpn of Seattle

07-13-2004, 02:17 AM

Yes I have been to his sight and I stil don't see the answers I want. I see lots of promises, but no answers.
What's the question? And please respond with specific areas of public policy.

Quote:
Because in the real world the campaign is between Bush and Kerry. The reason that the GOP is helping Nader get on the ballot in states like Oregon is because they know that votes for Nader are votes taken from Kerry.

As opposed from votes being taken away from Bush?
Precisely. As I know, and as the GOP which is busily helping Nader knows, most people likely to vote for Bush would never dream of supporting Nader, since above all things, Nader's reputation is anti-corporate America. And everyone who pays attention knows that Bush (with friends like "Kenny Boy" Lay, who presided over the 1992 GOP Convention), Dick "Haliberton Whore" Cheney, and the rest of the GOP are owned, lock, stock, and barrel by corporate America.
Very, very few Americans who would consider voting for Nader would also consider voting for Bush.

Because it wouldn't be rational.

lily

07-13-2004, 02:55 AM

Ok, let's start with just two things to begin with Helath care and Iraq.

His plan for cutting cost, getting almost every child health care and making it affordable to everyone is bascilly getting better technology to do the paper work?

His plan to get us out of Iraq is to get NATO involved?

jpn of Seattle

07-13-2004, 03:45 AM

His plan for cutting cost, getting almost every child health care and making it affordable to everyone is bascilly getting better technology to do the paper work?
His plan to get us out of Iraq is to get NATO involved?

Health care: To fund expanding health care for kids he wants to recind Bush's tax cuts on the 3% of Americans with income over $200,000. Sounds perfect to me.
First, the Kerry plan raises the maximum incomes under which both children and parents are eligible to receive benefits from Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This would extend coverage to many working-class families, who often fall into a painful gap: they earn too much money to qualify for government help, but not enough to pay for health insurance. As a result, the Kerry plan would probably end a national scandal, the large number of uninsured American children.Second, the Kerry plan would provide "reinsurance" for private health plans, picking up 75 percent of the medical bills exceeding $50,000 a year. Although catastrophic medical expenses strike only a tiny fraction of Americans each year, they account for a sizeable fraction of health care costs.
By relieving insurance companies and H.M.O.'s of this risk, the government would drive down premiums by 10 percent or more.

Iraq: It's no secret that Bush has thoroughly pissed off European leaders and finds it very difficult to get serious cooperation from them. They feel cheated by him, dissed by him, let down by him. As many of us do.
Can Kerry do better? That remains to be seen. It's a lead pipe cinch that Kerry won't do any worse, and just might do much, much better.
And yes, the goal would be "burden sharing" so we can reduce our presence and profile, and the serious work of building a viable government there can begin.

Anonymous Idiot Savant

07-13-2004, 04:07 AM

jpn, do you know how many trillions the government spends on health care or alternatively what % of the gnp goes to health care cost now.

have you seen the projected figures?

kerry's plan is to spend more so HMO's and insurance companies pay out less. which still doesn't address the rest of the problem.

This is not how the health care crisis will be solved.

jpn of Seattle

07-13-2004, 04:26 AM

www.budgetsim.org will have the figures. I don't see what your point is. What is your suggestion?