I'm startled just plain startled

[starm]

I must say I am just plain startled that W Bush has even a chance in this election. 80% of the rest of the world support Kerry to Bush. Why is that so? Are Americans not getting the same news that we do? Bush is not a conservative he is a raving maniac who will not use reason to make judgment. EVERYONE else sees it. _EVERY COUNTRY_! Bush’s senior was a million times better president than W. and even he didn’t get re-elected. I don’t know if people have given W trust by association to his father but he should have lost it a long time ago. Countless experts like Dick Clark warned everyone of the current administration’s incompetence at handling terrorism. Have you guys looked at Bush’s Biography compared to Kerry’s? Bush used to be a alcohol (and possibly cocaine) addict. While Kerry was educating himself and fighting for his country. I can’t believe that Bush’s arguments are taking seriously. It is very much obvious to everyone that the current US administration is using fear of terror to control everyone. Why has no one noticed that it isn’t even going after terror but rather after Iraq. (I shouldn’t have to mention that it is unrelated). Bush’s very simplistic rhetoric is one of looking at terror like a sports game where the two competing teams are terrorists and the US. He seems to be looking at winning a game or something. Anyone with a bit of logic should see that terrorist don’t have a country, they don’t have a place we can invade, they don’t have a central organisation we can beat. They just consist of a bunch of gangs dispersed around the world and new generations will always exist. If your country acts as a jerk or bully to the rest of the world you make a particular attracting target for terrorists. Right now even reasonable people don’t like the US very much. It is easy to see how the sick mind of terrorists can _easily_ turn that sentiment into recruitment tactics and brainwashing material. The US economy has plummeted since W has been in power. W is the only president in 60 years that hasn’t created any new jobs. The US Dept is increasing at a rate of 1.7 billions a day, (And there was a surplus with Clinton) and your dollar is getting weaker by the months. Domestic politics have been forgotten and replaced by disastrous world bullying.

I am equally astounded toward the use of electronic voting machines. Maybe it is just because of my background in electrical engineer and computer science but to me basic common sense will tell you that they are obviously stupid without a printout. I usually mock people who have conspiracy theories, but here I am inclined to suspect some kind of conspiracy. What else could explain this lack of common sense???

Some interesting links:
217.160.163.211/globalvote2004/
www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
www.lnreview.co.uk/news/004535.php
www.yellowhat.org/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.pl?boa rd=dem;action=display;num=1099270908

[DoubleX]

May I ask a few questions?

Do you support rehab?

Since terrorists don't have a nation of their own, do you think it's a good idea to check up on other countries' governments who may be helping them out?

Read this about jobs: www.factcheck.org/article114.html

Then read this about the economy: www.factcheck.org/article278.html

The domestic politics have not been forgotten. Bush stands to reform Social Security for America's furture seniors, he stands to help people afford college educations for the new jobs of the 21st century, he stands to cut taxes in order to stimulate the economy which fell into a small resecion (sp?) because of 9/11, he stands to reform Medicare by spending money on perscription drugs that will prevent diseases. As he said himself "We give money to those who had heart attacks but we don't give money so they can buy the correct medicines that will prevent them. That needs to be changed." (or something along those lines.)

[TNRighty]

'Splain me sumptin...after all I'm just a right wing nutjob.

If there is no terrorist connection in Iraq, why are there so many terrorists there fighting us? Why are the terrorists so bent on getting us out of Iraq? If the war in Iraq was such a sidetrack to the war on terror, why haven't we been hit again? If what you say is true, that the war in Iraq is a distraction away from the war on terror, I'd have to think the terrorists would be thrilled about it.

[starm]

Let me rephrase that TNRighty there _weren't_ any terrorism towards the US in Iraq. Now that Bush has made it a terrorism breeding ground there is.

[starm]

DoubleX your factcheck.org articles just confirm Bush's poor job on the economy. In one article they weren't sure weather Gore or Bush had the poorest record.

for more:
economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3262965
businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2004/nf2004108_4276_db016.htm
businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2004/nf2004108_4276_db016.htm
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29205-2004Jul30?language=printer

[TNRighty]

Would you believe it if Hillary had said it?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

[DoubleX]

Bush's tax cuts "helped . . . create nearly 2 million jobs." It is true that the economy has re-gained 1.9 million jobs since the very bottom of the job slump in August of 2003, as we reported when Bush used this number during the second presidential debate. But according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that still leaves the Bush administration with a loss of 585,000 jobs. And that's giving Bush credit in advance for an annual "benchmark revision" that won't be published until next February, when the BLS expects to revise the 2004 employment numbers upward by an estimated 236,000.

Real Gross Domestic Product, a general indicator of economic performance, grew an an unimpressive annual rate of 2.1 percent in the final quarter of 2000, after actually contracting by half a percentage point in the previous quarter. But employment was still growing when Bush was sworn in, and the economy actually added 113,000 payroll jobs between January and March 2001, before starting to decline in April.

Jobs are not going to always stay at the same number or always go up. Jobs fluxuate all the time. Just look at what FactCheck.org said about the Reagan years...

But it's premature to say that now. Even Reagan’s bigger job loss was erased less than two years after growth resumed. And several private economists are projecting job gains in the next 12 months that would leave Bush with a net gain in jobs.

Also, when they count the number of jobs in the US, they are counting all the payroll jobs. They are NOT counting all the people who open up their own businesses (which may be those being layed off and such.)

[TNRighty]

Starm still hasn't responded to my Hillary post, but I'll turn the page and talk about jobs. First, forget about net loss or net gain of jobs. The bottom line is this, right now the unemployment rate is 5.4-5.6%, the same as it was when Clinton left office in 2000. Funny how the perception changes depending on who's in office.

[TNRighty]

Hello, Starm...anyone home

[MO]

80% of the rest of the world support Kerry to Bush.

Who gives a ...f.....fig! Their socialist and or terrorist asses don't get a vote.
That's just reason number 9878475948 to vote Bush!

That's what I did.

[scrap]

TNRighty said:

Hello, Starm...anyone home

Starms out with his pals trying to lick each others wounds. ;D ;D ;D

[starm]

TNRighty said:

Starm still hasn't responded to my Hillary post, but I'll turn the page and talk about jobs. First, forget about net loss or net gain of jobs. The bottom line is this, right now the unemployment rate is 5.4-5.6%, the same as it was when Clinton left office in 2000. Funny how the perception changes depending on who's in office.

It doesn't matter what hilary said thats not what the expert say:www.yellowhat.org/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.pl?board=dem;action=display;num=1099270908

I can easily retort with this:

"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability."

-President George Bush in this book "A World Transformed"


And about the tax W Bush is the one of the only presidient who hasn't created any jobs. (Even lost a few) Granted that maybe its just because Clinton was too good and it was just hard to get yet a better performance.

I must add that Bush made a huge deficit to acheive his goals. It is much easyer to stimulate the economy when you are spending way too much. Creating jobs while not making a deficit is the real challenge. (Which Clinton was able to do) Bush is just putting the burden of his policies on the next generation. Even with all the spending he didn't even create any jobs. He just maintained Clinton's performance with much less efficiency.

It is all because he didn't invest in people. He didn't invest in building the american team of productive people that could stimulate the economy. Clinton by giving more social services to the people was much more of a team coach making sure everyone had all they needed to become productive citizens. He built a society that was better able to compete with other countries.

[TNRighty]

It's not the president's responsibility to create jobs. The government is not responsible for your financial well being, that's your job. Social services do not create a productive job force. They perpetuate government dependency. When you get out of college you'll learn these lessons. Arent you glad you get four more years to hate Bush. ENJOY!!!!!!!!!!!

[starm]

TNRighty said:

It's not the president's responsibility to create jobs. The government is not responsible for your financial well being, that's your job. Social services do not create a productive job force. They perpetuate government dependency. When you get out of college you'll learn these lessons. Arent you glad you get four more years to hate Bush. ENJOY!!!!!!!!!!!

I know its not the presidents responsability it is just a good measure of how well a president has been doing economically for the country. And I believe that the economy is a good indicator of how well the country is in general.

I disagree totally that social services perpetuate government dependency. You just have to tailor the services in such a way that they provide to those in temporary need. I know plenty of people who have used or would use services only to get back on track from illness or other life challenges. They can get back on track and become productive american again much faster with the services.

[moonotmo]

MO said:

Who gives a ...f.....fig! Their socialist and or terrorist asses don't get a vote.

Ahh, the good old American "all the other countries suck" philosophy. I can clearly see why the world envys you.

It is a bit of a shame that only Americans get to vote, considering how many people who have died from foreign countries recently as a direct result of US foreign policy. It is undeniable that America has a huge inpact on the world, so is it not fair to give them at least some say in what happens, at least regarding their foreign policy?

Many countries' citizens are held illegally in Guantanamo Bay seemingly indefinitely. US policy is a major source of instability, inciting terrorism globally. Countries are invaded illegally with the new "pre-emptive strike" philosophy, and yet many American citizens greet this with little or no skeptism, despite the justification for war being changed on an almost weekly basis as the original reasons prove to be false. You know something is wrong when foreigners know more about American politics than many of Americans themselves.

MO said:

That's just reason number 9878475948 to vote Bush!

That's what I did.

A reason to vote for Bush is to annoy the rest of the world? I can clearly see why the world envys you. And if you voted for Bush for that very reason...that certainly worries me.

TNRighty said:

If there is no terrorist connection in Iraq, why are there so many terrorists there fighting us?

Did you see all these "terrorists" there before the US decided to jump into the country? Or did they all jump into Iraq when the US charged into the country and turned it into chaos?

TNRighty said:

If the war in Iraq was such a sidetrack to the war on terror, why haven't we been hit again?

Let's try to expand your tunnel vision to countries other than America. Do the "Madrid bombings" ring a bell? Also, it has only been 3 years since America was attacked. In the 3 years before 11/9, was America attacked then? Is "we have not been attacked since 11/9" that much of an accomplishment?

TNRighty said:

If what you say is true, that the war in Iraq is a distraction away from the war on terror, I'd have to think the terrorists would be thrilled about it.

Indeed. They probably love it.