Bush's Resume

[my porsche]

Everyone is not making statements about why you are a Republican. Firstly try not to make massive generalisations, they do not help your argument or credibility. I personally dont understand how anyone can "be" a republican or otherwise. To me it makes more sense to investigate the individual candidiate or examine the current parties policies than to vote for a political ideal. What is it that you believe in and why?

well put crisis! i believe in the fact that the government should not determine the amount or what you can do/receive, that bush going to war WAS the RIGHT war at the RIGHT time, not the other way around. that there SHOULD ONLY be marriage between a man and a woman. that we shouldnt have a president that has the record kerry has as far as war, that a president should not change sides of an issue depending on what group he is talking to. that there should not be taxbreaks for those who earn less that 200,000 a year, as my family does not fall into that category, and neither do about half (im guessing here but it cant be too far off) of the american population

werty made some good points, so has crisis

[Matt]

well put crisis! i believe in the fact that the government should not determine the amount or what you can do/receive, that bush going to war WAS the RIGHT war at the RIGHT time, not the other way around. that there SHOULD ONLY be marriage between a man and a woman. that we shouldnt have a president that has the record kerry has as far as war, that a president should not change sides of an issue depending on what group he is talking to. that there should not be taxbreaks for those who earn less that 200,000 a year, as my family does not fall into that category, and neither do about half (im guessing here but it cant be too far off) of the american population

werty made some good points, so has crisis

You think 1/2 the country makes more than $200,000/year? You're out of your mind.

Average household income, by state, in 2003.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/in.../statemhi.html

You do think a President should have a history of bankrupting businesses? You do think a President should have a history of putting his friends/past business acquaintances in charge of political offices? You do think a President should be pushing for an amendement to the federal Constitution discriminating against a group of people simply because of who they are? You do think a President should turn his back to the rest of the world on most political/environmental/military/social subjects and create an isolationist policy for the United States? You do think a President should support sending jobs and companies overseas? You do think a President should focus his administration on supporting and coddling the top 2% of economic ladder? You are bred and blood Republican, about as far right as I've seen. Go visit Jerry Falwell. Then you'll truly find your calling.

[my porsche]

You think 1/2 the country makes more than $200,000/year? You're out of your mind.


You do think a President should have a history of bankrupting businesses? You do think a President should have a history of putting his friends/past business acquaintances in charge of political offices? You do think a President should be pushing for an amendement to the federal Constitution discriminating against a group of people simply because of who they are? You do think a President should turn his back to the rest of the world on most political/environmental/military/social subjects and create an isolationist policy for the United States? You do think a President should support sending jobs and companies overseas? You do think a President should focus his administration on supporting and coddling the top 2% of economic ladder? You are bred and blood Republican, about as far right as I've seen. Go visit Jerry Falwell. Then you'll truly find your calling.

Bush doesnt send jobs oversees, the companies do, and why wouldnt they? it a hell of a lot cheaper! Theres no reason not to, workers here should see that, and try to compete, by offering better quality work than little "Hashmir" or whoevers doing it overseas.


Bush isnt pushing for an amendment becasue gays are "just that way" its because marriage, as qouted from the dictionary is "The Union of a man and a Woman as husband and wife" so unless one of the gay men in the "marriage" gets a sex change, it isnt, and shouldnt be legal

[Matt]

Bush doesnt send jobs oversees, the companies do, and why wouldnt they? it a hell of a lot cheaper! Theres no reason not to, workers here should see that, and try to compete, by offering better quality work than little "Hashmir" or whoevers doing it overseas.


Bush isnt pushing for an amendment becasue gays are "just that way" its because marriage, as qouted from the dictionary is "The Union of a man and a Woman as husband and wife" so unless one of the gay men in the "marriage" gets a sex change, it isnt, and shouldnt be legal

Would you consider Webster's dictionary to be the most popular and most referenced dictionary in the world?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ry&va=marriage

Notice that it mentions a marriage between a man and woman and also a marriage between members of the same sex.

[Egg Nog]

Bush doesnt send jobs oversees, the companies do, and why wouldnt they? it a hell of a lot cheaper! Theres no reason not to, workers here should see that, and try to compete, by offering better quality work than little "Hashmir" or whoevers doing it overseas.

You are revoltingly sheltered.

Corporations wouldn't opt for better quality work at home, because money is the name of the game. Outsourcing work to developing countires helps cut cost because they can get away with doing things that they can't at home, like paying their workers pennies a day, working 7-day weeks etc.

There's no reason not to? Where do morals factor in? Aren't worker's rights and minimum wages implemented at home because of morals? SO why not elsewhere? It's total hypocrisy. It's all for the benefit of the rich corporations, at the expense of thousands and thousands of workers.

Having foreigners do work isn't the issue, it's how its done that's the problem.

[Ferrari Tifosi]

WOW! 1/2 of America making $200,000+ a year, don't I wish. That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read.

[my porsche]

matt, you realise, to not get sued, they had to add the same sex part now that it is legal in some states, didnt know if you knew that or not.

DO ANY OF YOU JACK-ASSES KNOW WHAT PARENTHESES ARE??!?!?!???!?!
they are things that seperate a comment from the flow of a sentence.
ok now, look inside the parentheses, they look like this ( and ), ok so look inside those in a little wuote from my monetary comment, here it is:

"and neither do about half (im guessing here but it cant be too far off) of the american population"

ok, now what did the parentheses say? riiiiiiiight, guessing, that means that im not sure, so i am GUESSING, which means i took an educated guess

and matt, you dont have a response about my comment on gay marriage? didnt think so, because you realise that Bush isnt trying to get it ammended becsue he hates gays, its because its just not right.

eggnog, ceo's of companies have no morals! hehe

[my porsche]

also, about income, if you look, when clinton left office (beggining 2001, remember Bush wasnt inaugurated until jaunuary) it was considerabley LOWER per capita average, the highest state was $41,930, now it is 55,220, so really you cant blame bush for ruining the economy, the facts speak for themselves, he didnt ruin it, he helped it in the long run


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...82/ai_87106490

[Matt]

matt, you realise, to not get sued, they had to add the same sex part now that it is legal in some states, didnt know if you knew that or not.

DO ANY OF YOU JACK-ASSES KNOW WHAT PARENTHESES ARE??!?!?!???!?!
they are things that seperate a comment from the flow of a sentence.
ok now, look inside the parentheses, they look like this ( and ), ok so look inside those in a little wuote from my monetary comment, here it is:

"and neither do about half (im guessing here but it cant be too far off) of the american population"

ok, now what did the parentheses say? riiiiiiiight, guessing, that means that im not sure, so i am GUESSING, which means i took an educated guess

and matt, you dont have a response about my comment on gay marriage? didnt think so, because you realise that Bush isnt trying to get it ammended becsue he hates gays, its because its just not right.

eggnog, ceo's of companies have no morals! hehe

Neither you, nor Bush, nor pretty much anyone else is the person to say whether it is right for me to marry my boyfriend. It is my decision and my decision alone.

What you said in your parenthesis was that, even if you were guessing, you probably weren't far off. Well, the difference between $40-50k and $200k is pretty far off. It just shows how ignorant and misinformed you really are.

[Matt]

also, about income, if you look, when clinton left office (beggining 2001, remember Bush wasnt inaugurated until jaunuary) it was considerabley LOWER per capita average, the highest state was $41,930, now it is 55,220, so really you cant blame bush for ruining the economy, the facts speak for themselves, he didnt ruin it, he helped it in the long run


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...82/ai_87106490

It also went up under Clinton from the previous administration. Salaries have steadily been on the rise as the cost of living has risen (unfortunately, the two are not always in sync). The rise in income was no more substantial during Bush's term than during any other president's.

[Matt]

It also went up under Clinton from the previous administration. Salaries have steadily been on the rise as the cost of living has risen (unfortunately, the two are not always in sync). The rise in income was no more substantial during Bush's term than during any other president's.

Also, from your own article...

IN 2001, growth in per capita personal income for the Nation slowed to 2.7 percent from 5.8 percent in 2000 (table A). (1) The 2.7-percent growth was the weakest since 1991--the trough of the 1990-91 U.S. recession--when it was 2.3 percent. Growth in per capita income decelerated in 46 States and the District of Columbia (DC). U.S. per capita income was $30,271 in 2001 and $29,469 in 2000.

Now, is 2001 during the Clinton administration...or the Bush administration?

[my porsche]

Also, from your own article...

IN 2001, growth in per capita personal income for the Nation slowed to 2.7 percent from 5.8 percent in 2000 (table A). (1) The 2.7-percent growth was the weakest since 1991--the trough of the 1990-91 U.S. recession--when it was 2.3 percent. Growth in per capita income decelerated in 46 States and the District of Columbia (DC). U.S. per capita income was $30,271 in 2001 and $29,469 in 2000.

Now, is 2001 during the Clinton administration...or the Bush administration?

yeah, look at the last line of the piece of my article, yes it was in bush's administration, but Clinton did not push it up at all, the reccesion from the Bush sr. years was over before clinton even ran for president, yet the Liberal media (i.e. over 90% of mainstream media) gave clinton credit for "saving the economy" crazy!!

and all this crap about W getting out of war by joining the air guard, why dont you ask anyone in the military if the national air guard is "fake military" or if its the easy way out, better wear a cup when you do!

[Matra et Alpine]

and all this crap about W getting out of war by joining the air guard, why dont you ask anyone in the military if the national air guard is "fake military" or if its the easy way out, better wear a cup when you do!

The coverage we've seen over here on this issue is not that he joined the National Guard, but that he didnt' turn up for medical exam and only did 9 or 10 days of flight in a year - not enough in themselves to be on ready status.
Wasn't there also a gap in his payroll records so questioning if he'd done anything one year ??
Whilst we dont' have equivalent of National Guard and don't really see it's role as clearly as Americans do, I don't think anyone would call them 'fake military' - or if they did they shoudl go study a bit more

[Coventrysucks]

Here is a very interesting theory I have just been mulling over whilst watching the fuss about the Black Watch having to "fill-in" for the American army at Faluja. (because the Pentagon didn't have a suitable post-war strategy, and didn't send enough front line troops)

Major Tim Collins said that what is needed for success in combatting the insurgents in Iraq is a large Multi-national coalition.

Why isn't there a large multi-national coalition?

Because Bush has alienated the USA from the rest of the world.

If you want your country to be safe from future terrorist attacks, I presume you want the "war on terror" to be won (By decent, right thinking people, not the terrorists).

How much easier would the war on terrorism be if you had not just USA, UK, Austrailia and a few others, but France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and the rest of Europe on "your" (America's) side?

Much easier.

However, because of Bush's cack-handed approach to the situation with France, Germany and the UN, "you" don't have them as part of the coalition, therefore the coalition isn't as effective as it could be, therefore the USA is at greater risk from terrorism.

[my porsche]

true, i agree, other than the cack-handed part, the un werent allowing him to go to war, otehr than that, makes sense coventry