Why would you say he is not qualified? He was a tow term Governor of Texas...Bill Clinton was a two term govenor of Arkansas...the poorest state int he union give or take mississippi?? You will never vote for him but i think his work and determination in the year following 9-11 is unquestionably honorable, firm and determined...He doesn;t take a poll before making a decision and he does invoke morals and charachter...Part of the reaosn he was elected was becuase most americans were tired of Clinton's lies and sexcapades....he has had to operate under incredible circumstances...The economy was falling aprt when he took over becuase his predacessor was too busy having sex, giving pardons and building his library his last term...In fact, Clinton's people were upste that Bush was talking down the economy remember? He then was faced wiht the CHINA crisis very early on and did an excellent job in the handling of that situation....then 9-11 hit ending any chance of a quick rebound....the guy hasn't complained , has remianed determined and stays the course....truthfully, I did not vote for GW...I wasn't that impressed with any of them so i stayed home instead because my vote "doesn;t matter"...the best part was I was living in P. beach County at the time LOL.....Bush has made a beleier out of me and Im telling you right now the Dems. keep underestimating him and they keeping getting egg on the face.
I know you think you are funny, but really, It's pretty lame...leave the humor up to Optionall777 and nobody will get hurt
Yes, I love it when dems with high school educations and low level jobs say how dumb Dubya is. A Harvard MBA who is president of the united states, and governor of Texas before that, is dumber than say, Barbara Streissand? Dumber than some idiot who gets paid to post on a web message board ? HA !
In a years time Dubya will be getting into history books as the liberator of Iraq, Clinton will be remembered as that guy who got a blowjob and was impeached, and the retards posting their anti bush crap will have a whole new set of aliases.
First off, I didn't mean it to come out that way. I did agree that his qualifications were weak. Anyone can be president. What I did say was that you stated that Bung's post slammed Republicans, when if fact he made no mention of Republicans at all. And yes, I thought his post was well done. As far as Dubya being qualified: Being Governor of Texas is not a great resume builder for Presidential Office. As you pointed out about Clinton. Like you, I did not vote for Bush. And I agree he has held up well under enormous pressure and staggering events. I do give him credit. And I back him in his efforts to fight terrorism and to dismantle the Iraqi regime. Yet, catering to the religious right is more than a little distasteful to me. Giving tax cuts to those who need it least, is again just against my personal beliefs. I think Ashcroft is a potentially dangerous guy, and my greatest concern is that Bush, if re-elected, can possibly stack the Supreme Court too far to the right. Lifetime appointees can set us back for a long time to come. I think the whole two term process is flawed. Generally, it seems a first term President spends too much time working on re-election, and spends the second term trying to memorialize themselves (as you mentioned Clinton attempted to do). Let them have one 6 year term, do a job, and leave. So in this respect, I give great credit to Bush. He seems concerned with doing what he believes is right, and does not seem concerned with public opinion, polls, etc. This is good. So far, I am impressed. He certainly is not campaigning for '04. I just don't want to live in a Theocracy. Or a fascist state, like Mondo seems to be clamoring for. I like freedom of speech and the rest of it!!! Peace, rs7
fair enough, but when you say you don;t want to live in a Fascist state without freedoms, remember your stance on the Tax cuts......I get so tired of hearing they are only for the rich....It's pretty funny how many liberals want equality on all levels...but when you mention that a guy who makes 1 million a year pays 370k in taxes and a guy who makes 20,000 a year pays 2,500 in taxes the response is always " well the rich guy can afford it"...but the bottom line is that if you made a flat tax across the board, everyone would pay the same % , but different amounts based on income....but liberals hate the idea of 'equality ' then... You know what is funny? When Clinton was in office and raised taxes only on the 'wealthiest %".....my wife and i were amazed to find out we were wealthy!!!....when Bush tried to send some $$ our way with a quick tax rebate...i was shocked to find out I was;t that wealthy
TM...first off, did Mondo really say that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor???? Regressive taxes just seem unfair. I think it's a bit more complex than your response addresses. A flat tax, (like sales tax) really does hurt the lower earner. The guy that makes 20k buys a pair of socks and pays the same sales tax as the millionaire. Same socks, same tax. The truth is, the rich really CAN afford it. I love paying a lot of taxes as opposed to not. Would I rather pay no tax and have all the money in the bank? Honestly not. I'd rather have paved roads, safe bridges, a strong military and law enforcement, and a cleaner environment. And a better educational system for ALL kids. Not just those who's parents can afford private school. Peace, Rs7
..John Belushi said it but he's starting to remind me of him in ANIMAL HOUSE....My point is this...everyone wants this utopian society of equality and individualism....but what you are basically saying is this: You have to pay more because you made more through work, perseverance and risks...if you assign a higher % for the wealthy in their tax contribution, should we also allow a higher % og gov't benefits to them as well? Larger Unemployment checks? If a millionaire loses his job that was paying him 200k per year, is it fair that after putting so much $$ into the system, he can now draw a max of 275.00 a week out? a guy who made 40k per year get's the same amount....fair? same with Social security....fair an equal should be just that...Pay more taxes, get more benefits..we are so overburdened with taxes its ridiculous...for example, in addition to my earnign smbeing taxed, do you think it's fair that after paying the gov't that if I take a shot on horting YAHOO today and I make 5k of it....I have to give 37% of it to the Feds? Cap gains on $$ that was ALREADY TAXED? double jepordy to me.
hehe...well, honestly, I'm glad you're that wealthy, but let me make some points that you may not be aware of. First, people who make more money consume more resources, whether it is government resources, environmental resources, etc. -- but that is simply the reality. I'll give a couple of examples to make sure we're talking about the same thing -- 1) You're wealthy, so you're buying new cars more frequently than poor people. Because of this, you use roads more than poor people do, and thus you also depend more upon police and local and federal highway departments who maintain and protect those roads. Somebody has to pay for this cost, and since you use the roads more than poor people, it really should be you. 2) You're wealthy, so you buy more new luxury cars. Well, buying more cars is definitely good for business and trade, but the flip side is that over your life time, you will be responsible for more consumption, and more pollution that more vehicles necessarily produce. This HAS to be controlled and cleaned up -- unless you want to live in a world that resembles Mexico City. Thus, you should be paying more in taxes for cleaning up the inevitably larger amount of pollution that you produce. Sorry, but like you said, nothing in life is free. 3) You're wealthy, so you get better health care than do poor people. Well, all of this health care is subsidized to a large degree by the US government. Who do you think gives grants to hospitals, physicians, and scientists to conduct their research to make better treatments for illness?? The US government, in the form of grants to the National Science Foundation, and other government institutions. Well, the guy who makes $20k and can't afford good health insurance is still paying taxes to the pot that the government will use to pay for research into these new treatments. He never gets to see any of the benefits of his tax dollars, because he cannot afford expensive, cutting edge treatments, but wealthy people will. Is THAT fair to the poor guy??? He's paying SOMETHING and getting NOTHING in return. You are paying ALOT, but you're also getting SOMETHING for it. 4) You're wealthy, and maybe you work for a large insurance company who assumes risk to protect the insured from terrorist attacks, and other unforeseen events. The government is here to protect your interests and to allow you to make good money in that business. Shouldn't you be expected to pay a little more than someone who may not benefit as directly as you would from that increased government spending?? 5) Not all people choose their careers to make money. If a social worker is making $30k per year, it is obviously not because that person is interested in making a lot of money, otherwise they would've done something else, since being a social worker isn't exactly a walk in the park. But is that social worker any less valuable to society?? Isn't it a VERY useful service that the social worker (or teacher, police officer, etc) performs by helping people such as kids stay away from crime?? Don't YOU benefit by the sacrifices that social worker is making?? Aren't YOU less likely to encounter crime aginst your property or person from the work that social worker is doing?? These are examples that immediately come to mind. And this is why I feel like the big tax-cutters and advocates of a flat tax (aka Republicans) are constantly trying to get something for nothing. NOTHING IN LIFE IS FREE, OK??? Get it through your head. And, no, I don't support the death tax or the dividend tax, either.
...and it was Gore during the 2000 election who said that he would favor a tax break for any income that went into a savings account...