I think a lot of people are willing to pay $1 a song if it's delivered to them in the FORMAT they want it in. All the concern about illegal copying aside, if someone did that - an awful lot of people would find it convenient enough to use it.
I agree going directly after Bin Laden was a smarter approach but that would only be relevant if no one else was a threat. If Hussein had nukes he definitely would be a threat to us (much less his own people which were being brutalized and killed).
Ah, and who put him in as the country's dictator? At the time Hussein was put into power he was "the lesser of two evils" I guess, as you so aptly put it. But Bush Sr. definitely and deliberately put that man in power.
Lesser of 2 evils really doesn't help when you have an extremist throwing planes into your buildings killing thousands of your people and another nut that you've attacked before almost has a nuclear arsenal. Either of those 2 evils had a good potential to be catastrophic to the U.S.
Get some perspective man, more people are killed by malnutrition in the U.S. every year than were killed in the 9/11 attack. And it's pretty goddamned hard to starve to death in the U.S.
But as we all know, hell is still hot and pigs lack wings.... so we deal with what we have;-)
Yeah, half the country stupidly elected a power-monger's son who originally set the course for Iraq as we know it today. Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld started it, and then we elected his son. What did we expect the son would do if given even the slightest chance?
We're not policing any of the other countries where human rights atrocities are taking place. We're not willing to start wars with any of them. This is all about family and personal agendas of the person who we all elected to the top post of the Executive branch of our government.
Not to mention that in some elections under some State and Municipal rules, absentee ballots are only counted IF THERE IS A RECOUNT. Sometimes even having the votes fall within a certain percentage of each other is not enough to trigger the tallying of absentee ballots in certain locales.
Many people who use absentee ballots don't check their local laws and election rules, and are surprised when you mention they should check into this possibility. And severely disappointed that their votes haven't been counted in years.
How do you stop people who have the power to vote themselves pay raises with your money? (As they did just last week. Yeah, sure... they deserved it. Riiiight.)
And all I'm saying is there's a lot of rumors that the other side is leaning the other way and opinions, but no studies or factual publications saying that. Thus, Fox is probably WAY out to the right, and the others are mildly left.
O'Reilley is the sickening one... "No Spin Zone" my ass.;-)
Could you site some real research that proves this "media is left" myth within the last four years?
I'm seeing books published about the outrage that is Fox News, but I'm not seeing similar books or information about the others.
Of course, I take everything with a grain of salt, but Fox is definitely on a mission -- the others just lean. Fox falls over themselves to be on the Right.
Yes, true. If he personally answered them instead of going by his policies which are tempered toward the middle by his desire to keep his approval ratings high, he'd be even further right, and probably more authoritarian.
Remarkable turnaround. Okay even if I believed that, which I don't because I know of no one who's financial situation is better and a turn-around at the bottom and staying there isn't much good... but anyway...
Even if I believe that, what exactly has the Bush administration done to cause this oh-so-grand-we're-all-rolling-in-money turnaround?
I hear of tax cuts, and got $400. Not even close to useful as far as my income level goes. And only a one-time cut. That's an extra REFUND not a TAX CUT. CUT means GONE forever. Someone in the Bush Whitehouse needs a dictionary.
I hear about great education reform, but all public colleges in this State are bankrupt and begging for rate hikes,
I hear about "security" but know damn well any terrorist could strike anywhere they really wanted to just like all of human history, if they're willing to give up their lives doing it. Even on our soil.
And I hear about this great "Plan" from Bush, which apparently by listening to his speeches is the same tired rhetoric from 2000, that he didn't accomplish.
And no I have never heard more than ten minutes of James Carville speaking in my life. These are MY thoughts, directed by what I see happening in the world around me, instead of being "led" around by a "great leader" who's doing bupkis.
The dot-bombs weren't even CLOSE to the largest money losers. The energy industry (read: GWB's friends at Enron) caused far more damage. Likewise the shady investors and investment funds... all presided over by Bush's Justice Department and Bush's SEC are responsible for far more damage.
You're full of shit about the Elder Bush's job numbers. The current standings are:
Least number of jobs created: 1. Hoover 2. GWB 3. GHWB 4. Eisenhower
GHWB's numbers are around 3% TOTAL job growth over his entire term.
Presidnents with a joint same-part Congress can do much much more than other Presidents -- if they WANT to.
GWB didn't give you a tax cut worth any more than about $400. Your total tax bill is probably five times that or more. It was a pittance, a fart, a nothing. And after it's re-taxed again next year as taxable income, you'll be lucky if you even see it as a blip in your financial statement. If you're an average wage earner in America.
Your preference for bringing "it under control" by controlling spending is a little lost on this Big Hat Boy from Texas, my friend. $200 billion with a B and counting, and I guarantee you and I are going to be paying for it for the rest of our lives.
Keep voting for the guy who's run companies into the ground - and has zero business sense. The guy who almost bankrupt Texas government. And the guy who's already bankrupt America in our modern economic battles while fighting his yesteryear military one. It'll PAY OFF in higher taxes under ANY President from here on out.
Was capturing Saddam Hussein worth $200 billion dollars?
And Osama's still out there, the true enemy. Roaming free after three years of the most powerful nation on the planet hunting for him.
Kerry's head is up his ass and everyone knows it. There's been all sorts of terrorist attacks across the world this past week, and we need a president who will meet this shit head on. Bush already has, twice over.
Let's see - how'd he do that... by attacking the wrong country?
The terrorists are in Afghanistan and coming into our country via Visas issued by Saudi Arabia... and we're stuck in the middle of a civil holy war in Iraq?
Osama, who Bush swore three years ago to "smoke out" is nowhere to be found, but we have detainees from 44 countries locked up in a military base off-shore so we don't have to give them due-process. We're a laughingstock to the world, because we don't even follow our own rules -- "All men are created equal" unless you are Muslim and shot at someone in Iraq... in that case, you're imprisoned in an island jail away from our shores for life.
Sounds like Commander in Chief has his head up and locked about what makes the country great. It's not the military power, it's the damn Constitution you redneck hick!
Comparing Kerry's 20 year Senate voting record -- where one MUST compromise to survive for 20 years -- to Bush's 4 years as the head of the Executive Branch is an apples to oranges comparison and always has been.
If Bush had bothered to serve in a legislative position for 20 years, he'd have a similar voting record -- or he wouldn't have lasted 20 years. Instead he was Governor of Texas and was hated and ran the state bankrupt, and before that he ran various companies with friends. Badly.
He's a good old boy with not a shred of brains. C average in school. Eager to be the Big Man on Campus, but not eager to speak fluently in his own native toungue or learn diplomacy.
Kerry's "wishy-washy" voting record could be said about any long-term Senator, including Republican ones. Even McCain jumped the Party Line fence when he voted too far one way too often and needed new buddies. (And I like McCain.)
GWB is All Hat, No Cattle when it comes to a real PLAN for the economy, and the War on Terror is a nice diversion to the real War -- the economic one that we're losing.
In the shooting war, Bush looks like a hero. In the economic war, Bush is a zero, and couldn't come up with an economic plan that WORKS if it shot him in the ass and knocked him off a swiftboat. Or an aircraft carrier. Or whatever toys he likes riding around on these days while he's on VACATION every few months.
He's the epitomy of super-rich clueless trust-fund babies, and has not a clue what life is like as a worker-bee in America. The widely touted "Largest Tax Cut Ever" wouldn't even pay one month's rent for the average American.
I had a vacation once - four years ago. And a year without a job in the middle of that four. I'd say it's time for the President to work a little harder to deal with BOTH domestic and overseas issues. Anyone whining that he's "been too busy" is full of shit... he's the President of the Goddamned United States and can sail a Navy, move an Army, and DELEGATE anything domestic he REALLY wanted to get done to ANYONE in his sight. He didn't. Therefore, I assume his agenda is a lie. He never intended to do anything about the economy that would truly help it, because he and his advisors do not know how.
Everyone who says, "Bush is a known entity" is fooling themselves... this will be the SECOND TERM... he will have ZERO reason to care about public opinion this time around, and his special interests paying for him to be in office (read: pulling the strings via Cheney) will have incredible power over him this time.
Clinton has a record of 19% job growth over two terms. That's just one example of his promises kept vs. GW not keeping his. GW just keeps saying the economy's getting better without doing anything constructive to actually attempt to make it so.
A tax cut is not what I want, it's what GW promised. What he gave was a small tax refund that was taxed itself.
I never mentioned anything about Tax Cuts for the Rich. The rich shelter their assets in corporations which pay taxes AFTER expenses in this country, and have every right to do so. Rich, poor, we all have kids or choose not to -- giving tax benefits to those who have children that are higher than to those who do not is a blatant play for the votes of the "family values" groups.
Of course, I agree with you that I would like lower taxes in general, and permanent tax cuts that remain in place vs. a small refund, but obviously the business numbers don't make that possible unless the Federal government gets smaller. It gained more employees under this President than under any other in history, so that's 100% non-feasible, but he promised he'd do it. In order to make it work, I would recommend "laying off" or "outsourcing" the majority of the IRS by quickly passing legislation to make taxable income calculatable by anyone older than 10 years old possible with simple math (percentages or a sliding scale) and a pencil and paper. Otherwise, he simply can not ever meet his promises.
The amount people THINK they received back in taxes is lowered by approximately 40% depending on what they did with it because it will be taxed this year. It's very little real money back into the economy, more like a New York City street-corner shell-game than a tax cut... and a tax cut is what Bush promised those who voted for him. Where is it?
Ah yes, Governor of Texas. It'll be fun when Kerry's camp decides to finally play hardball with that one. Last I checked the State was bankrupt after that, and history is repeating at the National level now. Deficits? GW's your man for those, for sure. He's real good at those. Something a true Conservative would never do.
Crushing two regimes was not something he promised to do, and I'm talking about the promises. I'm appreciative that he took Saddam out of power, since his dad rigged the Iraqi elections and put the scumbag in there in the first place, but he's killed 1000 American soldiers cleaning up after his Dad's fuck up.
One photo-op to an aircraft carrier that cost the taxpayers HOW much? Kerry served and proudly states it, even if his service isn't "good enough" for some, but Bush didn't serve with any type of distinction or honor and then blows his own horn by standing on an aircraft carrier that I paid for?
The proof of GW's irregular service was on the front page of my newspaper this morning, so I'll assume it's probably also in the original article at the top of this thread and in your local newsprint too by now.
Most of his paperwork has mysteriously disappeared, but every new document that comes out paints a worse picture.
Kerry's not "making shit up" when he said he was shot at. George is when he stands on a carrier in a flight suit though -- making up a pretty picture for you to believe in that has no basis in fact.
Bush is not running on anything but sound bites, talking points, and false promises, Kerry's running on a lifetime of service to his country and possibly an over-zealous portrayal of that service.
But even without ANY awards, he's still been shot at for his country, and shot back, and GW hasn't, and avoided it via his family priveleges. How do all the GW fans seem to miss that point?
So you quickly said, "No GW hasn't met his promises, I'm willing to give him another try" and then jumped back to the military service thing -- Kerry served, GW didn't. That's the bottom line there.
The current real world war is economic, and GW and his advisors have NO idea how to handle that battle. Ten Nobel Prize winning economists are voting for Kerry. We're fighting the War on Terror and losing our money to fund it to China.
Rattling the military sabre is exactly how the Soviet Union went bankrupt. And their problems started in Afghanistan, even! Amazing how history repeats. When the people have no jobs and no hope is when they revolt against the Government that's sending all their money to buy tanks. Seriously -- it's the same path. We can either learn from history or repeat it. There's no "glorious victory" at the end of a War on Terror, because it never ends.
Dem spin... well that's insulting. I actually did have these things called "rational thoughts" all on my own, and didn't get them from anyone else.
And considering I'm a registered Republican and always have been, it's nifty you call it "Dem" spin. I also enjoyed when the Republican Party called the house to "remind" me to vote a number of months ago, and them asking, "Do you approve of the job our President George W. Bush has been doing?" And I was able to answer, "Not only no, but hell no."
"Oh, then thank you for your time then."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I would just prefer a President who actually works on his promises instead of simply restating them every four years.
As far as Bush's tax cuts go, his promises have been that there would be enough tax cuts to turn the economy around -- hasn't happened. He also continues to promise simpler tax code, and he sites less need for IRS employees as his justification for that. Any legislation started for that particular goal yet? Nope.
However if he were to pass sweeping tax law changes that wiped out 1/2 of the IRS overnight, his job numbers would be in sad shape and he knows it. After hiring the most Federal employees of any President in history, his job creation numbers are second-worst ever behind Hoover. And his dad's are third-worst. Fourth place is Eisenhower.
Saying Bush is a "Conservative" really cracks me up. All he's conserving is the money of the ultra-rich who support his campaign. Fine with me, but I won't vote for that type of behavior. Not until I'm ultra-rich anyway.;-) In the meantime, I've had my salary down by close to 20% from where it was during the Clinton administration, am paying more in taxes, and haven't had a vacation in four years. Meanwhile my so-called "leader" is bucking for the top vacation spot amongst Presidents ever (currently in 2nd place) and hasn't gotten anything done he promised yet.
Federal spending has increased dramatically since Clinton's term, and will never go below current expenditures until the "War on Terrorism" is over, which is probably - never. When does one win such a War?
In other words, I have zero evidence that Bush even truly wishes to accomplish any of the things he's promised in his TWO campaigns, because he's simply not getting them done. The promises are just a sales pitch for the undecided -- and the people who have already decided are willfully ignoring that none of the 2000 campaign promises have been kept, even though they're the people who voted for Bush based on his 2000 platform.
At least his dad was man enough to fall on his sword after his "Read my lips, no new taxes" turned out to be unrealistic and impossible. He went ahead and raised taxes and lost the next election.
The only "spin" I see here right now is an ineffective President with a loyal House and Senate ready to do his bidding if he can create legislation that will fall to a vote along party lines saying that he'll do the same things he said he would in 2000.
Time to try someone else for a while. Even you have only one concrete item that he accomplished.
And that accomplishment is marred severely by the fact that his tax cut to my taxation group and peers was given as TAXABLE INCOME. That alone makes the great-and-almighty Bush's tax cut immediately 40% less effective to me personally. And the tax cut favored those with children heavily. My wife and I are dual-income no-kids (DINKs) who are working hard and haven't had a break or vacation in four years, and who are contributing heavily to the welfare of our economy, and we were effectively penalized in Bush's plan.
Re:And this is an issue because?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 1
Nah, I think it's a reasonable assumption that such a major change in current policy (having large debates) would be so "different" from the norm, the networks would advertise the "new and improved" debates heavily, resulting in higher viewership, at least the first time.
Further additional debate by outside people about the issues, questions, and answers during such a longer debate would further solidify more of the "undecided" voters resolve, and those newly-converted voters would inevitibly talk to others who were previously not engaged in the debates at all, also.
My thoughts anyway... longer/more debate = more overall voters.
Re:And this is an issue because?
on
Open the Debates
·
· Score: 1
I'd probably still watch much of it, Tivo is an excellent invention.
Those that cared, would watch. Those that didn't wouldn't.
But I still contend that it's too big a leap from where we are today -- I'd happily take one full day of two-party debates over the current "Sound bite" and "Talking points" crap we see 24/7 on CNN today.
Slashdot Mirror
Good thing there's Wal-Mart, eh?
(Yes, that's sarcasm.)
But you forgot the most important reason! Jesus told him to! ;-)
Who Would Jesus Bomb? WWJB
He said he did it, he didn't say he had a choice in the matter.
You're seeing the results of low standards American schools set when teaching the English language.
Our President is a shining example. He supposedly graduated from a prestigous University and still has zero command of the language.
I think a lot of people are willing to pay $1 a song if it's delivered to them in the FORMAT they want it in. All the concern about illegal copying aside, if someone did that - an awful lot of people would find it convenient enough to use it.
LOL! Good one!
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I agree going directly after Bin Laden was a smarter approach but that would only be relevant if no one else was a threat. If Hussein had nukes he definitely would be a threat to us (much less his own people which were being brutalized and killed).
Ah, and who put him in as the country's dictator? At the time Hussein was put into power he was "the lesser of two evils" I guess, as you so aptly put it. But Bush Sr. definitely and deliberately put that man in power.
Lesser of 2 evils really doesn't help when you have an extremist throwing planes into your buildings killing thousands of your people and another nut that you've attacked before almost has a nuclear arsenal. Either of those 2 evils had a good potential to be catastrophic to the U.S.
Get some perspective man, more people are killed by malnutrition in the U.S. every year than were killed in the 9/11 attack. And it's pretty goddamned hard to starve to death in the U.S.
But as we all know, hell is still hot and pigs lack wings.... so we deal with what we have
Yeah, half the country stupidly elected a power-monger's son who originally set the course for Iraq as we know it today. Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld started it, and then we elected his son. What did we expect the son would do if given even the slightest chance?
We're not policing any of the other countries where human rights atrocities are taking place. We're not willing to start wars with any of them. This is all about family and personal agendas of the person who we all elected to the top post of the Executive branch of our government.
We're the idiots for allowing it to happen.
All done in Perl, handles both e-mail and web-based ticket creation, easy to hack on to change.
RequestTracker
Not to mention that in some elections under some State and Municipal rules, absentee ballots are only counted IF THERE IS A RECOUNT. Sometimes even having the votes fall within a certain percentage of each other is not enough to trigger the tallying of absentee ballots in certain locales.
Many people who use absentee ballots don't check their local laws and election rules, and are surprised when you mention they should check into this possibility. And severely disappointed that their votes haven't been counted in years.
How do you stop people who have the power to vote themselves pay raises with your money? (As they did just last week. Yeah, sure... they deserved it. Riiiight.)
And all I'm saying is there's a lot of rumors that the other side is leaning the other way and opinions, but no studies or factual publications saying that. Thus, Fox is probably WAY out to the right, and the others are mildly left.
;-)
O'Reilley is the sickening one... "No Spin Zone" my ass.
Could you site some real research that proves this "media is left" myth within the last four years?
I'm seeing books published about the outrage that is Fox News, but I'm not seeing similar books or information about the others.
Of course, I take everything with a grain of salt, but Fox is definitely on a mission -- the others just lean. Fox falls over themselves to be on the Right.
Yes, true. If he personally answered them instead of going by his policies which are tempered toward the middle by his desire to keep his approval ratings high, he'd be even further right, and probably more authoritarian.
It's only a tool. If the results are "skewed to the left" then GWB is WAY off the graph, right?
Remarkable turnaround. Okay even if I believed that, which I don't because I know of no one who's financial situation is better and a turn-around at the bottom and staying there isn't much good... but anyway...
Even if I believe that, what exactly has the Bush administration done to cause this oh-so-grand-we're-all-rolling-in-money turnaround?
I hear of tax cuts, and got $400. Not even close to useful as far as my income level goes. And only a one-time cut. That's an extra REFUND not a TAX CUT. CUT means GONE forever. Someone in the Bush Whitehouse needs a dictionary.
I hear about great education reform, but all public colleges in this State are bankrupt and begging for rate hikes,
I hear about "security" but know damn well any terrorist could strike anywhere they really wanted to just like all of human history, if they're willing to give up their lives doing it. Even on our soil.
And I hear about this great "Plan" from Bush, which apparently by listening to his speeches is the same tired rhetoric from 2000, that he didn't accomplish.
And no I have never heard more than ten minutes of James Carville speaking in my life. These are MY thoughts, directed by what I see happening in the world around me, instead of being "led" around by a "great leader" who's doing bupkis.
The dot-bombs weren't even CLOSE to the largest money losers. The energy industry (read: GWB's friends at Enron) caused far more damage. Likewise the shady investors and investment funds... all presided over by Bush's Justice Department and Bush's SEC are responsible for far more damage.
You're full of shit about the Elder Bush's job numbers. The current standings are:
Least number of jobs created:
1. Hoover
2. GWB
3. GHWB
4. Eisenhower
GHWB's numbers are around 3% TOTAL job growth over his entire term.
Presidnents with a joint same-part Congress can do much much more than other Presidents -- if they WANT to.
GWB didn't give you a tax cut worth any more than about $400. Your total tax bill is probably five times that or more. It was a pittance, a fart, a nothing. And after it's re-taxed again next year as taxable income, you'll be lucky if you even see it as a blip in your financial statement. If you're an average wage earner in America.
Your preference for bringing "it under control" by controlling spending is a little lost on this Big Hat Boy from Texas, my friend. $200 billion with a B and counting, and I guarantee you and I are going to be paying for it for the rest of our lives.
Keep voting for the guy who's run companies into the ground - and has zero business sense. The guy who almost bankrupt Texas government. And the guy who's already bankrupt America in our modern economic battles while fighting his yesteryear military one. It'll PAY OFF in higher taxes under ANY President from here on out.
Was capturing Saddam Hussein worth $200 billion dollars?
And Osama's still out there, the true enemy. Roaming free after three years of the most powerful nation on the planet hunting for him.
Highly effective! Four more years, indeed! (not!)
Kerry's head is up his ass and everyone knows it. There's been all sorts of terrorist attacks across the world this past week, and we need a president who will meet this shit head on. Bush already has, twice over.
Let's see - how'd he do that... by attacking the wrong country?
The terrorists are in Afghanistan and coming into our country via Visas issued by Saudi Arabia... and we're stuck in the middle of a civil holy war in Iraq?
Osama, who Bush swore three years ago to "smoke out" is nowhere to be found, but we have detainees from 44 countries locked up in a military base off-shore so we don't have to give them due-process. We're a laughingstock to the world, because we don't even follow our own rules -- "All men are created equal" unless you are Muslim and shot at someone in Iraq... in that case, you're imprisoned in an island jail away from our shores for life.
Sounds like Commander in Chief has his head up and locked about what makes the country great. It's not the military power, it's the damn Constitution you redneck hick!
Comparing Kerry's 20 year Senate voting record -- where one MUST compromise to survive for 20 years -- to Bush's 4 years as the head of the Executive Branch is an apples to oranges comparison and always has been.
If Bush had bothered to serve in a legislative position for 20 years, he'd have a similar voting record -- or he wouldn't have lasted 20 years. Instead he was Governor of Texas and was hated and ran the state bankrupt, and before that he ran various companies with friends. Badly.
He's a good old boy with not a shred of brains. C average in school. Eager to be the Big Man on Campus, but not eager to speak fluently in his own native toungue or learn diplomacy.
Kerry's "wishy-washy" voting record could be said about any long-term Senator, including Republican ones. Even McCain jumped the Party Line fence when he voted too far one way too often and needed new buddies. (And I like McCain.)
GWB is All Hat, No Cattle when it comes to a real PLAN for the economy, and the War on Terror is a nice diversion to the real War -- the economic one that we're losing.
In the shooting war, Bush looks like a hero. In the economic war, Bush is a zero, and couldn't come up with an economic plan that WORKS if it shot him in the ass and knocked him off a swiftboat. Or an aircraft carrier. Or whatever toys he likes riding around on these days while he's on VACATION every few months.
He's the epitomy of super-rich clueless trust-fund babies, and has not a clue what life is like as a worker-bee in America. The widely touted "Largest Tax Cut Ever" wouldn't even pay one month's rent for the average American.
I had a vacation once - four years ago. And a year without a job in the middle of that four. I'd say it's time for the President to work a little harder to deal with BOTH domestic and overseas issues. Anyone whining that he's "been too busy" is full of shit... he's the President of the Goddamned United States and can sail a Navy, move an Army, and DELEGATE anything domestic he REALLY wanted to get done to ANYONE in his sight. He didn't. Therefore, I assume his agenda is a lie. He never intended to do anything about the economy that would truly help it, because he and his advisors do not know how.
Everyone who says, "Bush is a known entity" is fooling themselves... this will be the SECOND TERM... he will have ZERO reason to care about public opinion this time around, and his special interests paying for him to be in office (read: pulling the strings via Cheney) will have incredible power over him this time.
Clinton has a record of 19% job growth over two terms. That's just one example of his promises kept vs. GW not keeping his. GW just keeps saying the economy's getting better without doing anything constructive to actually attempt to make it so.
A tax cut is not what I want, it's what GW promised. What he gave was a small tax refund that was taxed itself.
I never mentioned anything about Tax Cuts for the Rich. The rich shelter their assets in corporations which pay taxes AFTER expenses in this country, and have every right to do so. Rich, poor, we all have kids or choose not to -- giving tax benefits to those who have children that are higher than to those who do not is a blatant play for the votes of the "family values" groups.
Of course, I agree with you that I would like lower taxes in general, and permanent tax cuts that remain in place vs. a small refund, but obviously the business numbers don't make that possible unless the Federal government gets smaller. It gained more employees under this President than under any other in history, so that's 100% non-feasible, but he promised he'd do it. In order to make it work, I would recommend "laying off" or "outsourcing" the majority of the IRS by quickly passing legislation to make taxable income calculatable by anyone older than 10 years old possible with simple math (percentages or a sliding scale) and a pencil and paper. Otherwise, he simply can not ever meet his promises.
The amount people THINK they received back in taxes is lowered by approximately 40% depending on what they did with it because it will be taxed this year. It's very little real money back into the economy, more like a New York City street-corner shell-game than a tax cut... and a tax cut is what Bush promised those who voted for him. Where is it?
Ah yes, Governor of Texas. It'll be fun when Kerry's camp decides to finally play hardball with that one. Last I checked the State was bankrupt after that, and history is repeating at the National level now. Deficits? GW's your man for those, for sure. He's real good at those. Something a true Conservative would never do.
Crushing two regimes was not something he promised to do, and I'm talking about the promises. I'm appreciative that he took Saddam out of power, since his dad rigged the Iraqi elections and put the scumbag in there in the first place, but he's killed 1000 American soldiers cleaning up after his Dad's fuck up.
One photo-op to an aircraft carrier that cost the taxpayers HOW much? Kerry served and proudly states it, even if his service isn't "good enough" for some, but Bush didn't serve with any type of distinction or honor and then blows his own horn by standing on an aircraft carrier that I paid for?
The proof of GW's irregular service was on the front page of my newspaper this morning, so I'll assume it's probably also in the original article at the top of this thread and in your local newsprint too by now.
Most of his paperwork has mysteriously disappeared, but every new document that comes out paints a worse picture.
Kerry's not "making shit up" when he said he was shot at. George is when he stands on a carrier in a flight suit though -- making up a pretty picture for you to believe in that has no basis in fact.
Bush is not running on anything but sound bites, talking points, and false promises, Kerry's running on a lifetime of service to his country and possibly an over-zealous portrayal of that service.
But even without ANY awards, he's still been shot at for his country, and shot back, and GW hasn't, and avoided it via his family priveleges. How do all the GW fans seem to miss that point?
So you quickly said, "No GW hasn't met his promises, I'm willing to give him another try" and then jumped back to the military service thing -- Kerry served, GW didn't. That's the bottom line there.
The current real world war is economic, and GW and his advisors have NO idea how to handle that battle. Ten Nobel Prize winning economists are voting for Kerry. We're fighting the War on Terror and losing our money to fund it to China.
Rattling the military sabre is exactly how the Soviet Union went bankrupt. And their problems started in Afghanistan, even! Amazing how history repeats. When the people have no jobs and no hope is when they revolt against the Government that's sending all their money to buy tanks. Seriously -- it's the same path. We can either learn from history or repeat it. There's no "glorious victory" at the end of a War on Terror, because it never ends.
So would you have vote for him if he had run on the 2000 ballot as a Democrat? I think he'd have won in a landslide.
Dem spin... well that's insulting. I actually did have these things called "rational thoughts" all on my own, and didn't get them from anyone else.
;-) In the meantime, I've had my salary down by close to 20% from where it was during the Clinton administration, am paying more in taxes, and haven't had a vacation in four years. Meanwhile my so-called "leader" is bucking for the top vacation spot amongst Presidents ever (currently in 2nd place) and hasn't gotten anything done he promised yet.
And considering I'm a registered Republican and always have been, it's nifty you call it "Dem" spin. I also enjoyed when the Republican Party called the house to "remind" me to vote a number of months ago, and them asking, "Do you approve of the job our President George W. Bush has been doing?" And I was able to answer, "Not only no, but hell no."
"Oh, then thank you for your time then."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I would just prefer a President who actually works on his promises instead of simply restating them every four years.
As far as Bush's tax cuts go, his promises have been that there would be enough tax cuts to turn the economy around -- hasn't happened. He also continues to promise simpler tax code, and he sites less need for IRS employees as his justification for that. Any legislation started for that particular goal yet? Nope.
However if he were to pass sweeping tax law changes that wiped out 1/2 of the IRS overnight, his job numbers would be in sad shape and he knows it. After hiring the most Federal employees of any President in history, his job creation numbers are second-worst ever behind Hoover. And his dad's are third-worst. Fourth place is Eisenhower.
Saying Bush is a "Conservative" really cracks me up. All he's conserving is the money of the ultra-rich who support his campaign. Fine with me, but I won't vote for that type of behavior. Not until I'm ultra-rich anyway.
Federal spending has increased dramatically since Clinton's term, and will never go below current expenditures until the "War on Terrorism" is over, which is probably - never. When does one win such a War?
In other words, I have zero evidence that Bush even truly wishes to accomplish any of the things he's promised in his TWO campaigns, because he's simply not getting them done. The promises are just a sales pitch for the undecided -- and the people who have already decided are willfully ignoring that none of the 2000 campaign promises have been kept, even though they're the people who voted for Bush based on his 2000 platform.
At least his dad was man enough to fall on his sword after his "Read my lips, no new taxes" turned out to be unrealistic and impossible. He went ahead and raised taxes and lost the next election.
The only "spin" I see here right now is an ineffective President with a loyal House and Senate ready to do his bidding if he can create legislation that will fall to a vote along party lines saying that he'll do the same things he said he would in 2000.
Time to try someone else for a while. Even you have only one concrete item that he accomplished.
And that accomplishment is marred severely by the fact that his tax cut to my taxation group and peers was given as TAXABLE INCOME. That alone makes the great-and-almighty Bush's tax cut immediately 40% less effective to me personally. And the tax cut favored those with children heavily. My wife and I are dual-income no-kids (DINKs) who are working hard and haven't had a break or vacation in four years, and who are contributing heavily to the welfare of our economy, and we were effectively penalized in Bush's plan.
Nah, I think it's a reasonable assumption that such a major change in current policy (having large debates) would be so "different" from the norm, the networks would advertise the "new and improved" debates heavily, resulting in higher viewership, at least the first time.
Further additional debate by outside people about the issues, questions, and answers during such a longer debate would further solidify more of the "undecided" voters resolve, and those newly-converted voters would inevitibly talk to others who were previously not engaged in the debates at all, also.
My thoughts anyway... longer/more debate = more overall voters.
I'd probably still watch much of it, Tivo is an excellent invention.
Those that cared, would watch. Those that didn't wouldn't.
But I still contend that it's too big a leap from where we are today -- I'd happily take one full day of two-party debates over the current "Sound bite" and "Talking points" crap we see 24/7 on CNN today.
Interesting comments. All I have to go on is media on the Kennedy thing, as he was dead long before I was alive. Thanks for your input.