so tell us, other than owning a baseball team, running an oil company (and failing to find oil) and screwing up texas (ask Shark)...what made mr. bush qualified to run the country?

really. we want to know (us socialist-leaning liberal types who apparently can't think for ourselves).

Poppy's boy was really well-connected. Not only to Cheney and Rummy and all those demonic dinosaurs, but to folks who could sway the not-Supremes to do evil.

What made him qualified? Well 3 plus years of actual experience doing the job. Also, I like the fact that Bush can make a decision and stick to it, rather than see what the polls say first. Can't say the same for Kerry.

He was a quite-well regarded governor of one of the largest and most diverse states. Governor-ship has been the ticket to the White House for every president since Carter other than Bush 1.

That too! Thanks Eric!

all of these arguments (from both sides) about who's qualified are moot anyway since it seems to boil right down to partisan leanings.

dukakis was a governor, so was clinton and carter as well....yet i'd be willing to bet that most conservatives would have said that they were not qualified for the office of the president.

So is being a womanizer, a crook and a drug addict or alcoholic.

The most important thing you need for a successful road to the presidency is riches and the ability to rim the anuses of animals with a smile and not gaggin' your breakkie.

And elephants and asses have some pretty big anuses, let me tell you. When I used to be a horse and buggy driver, I had to wash my horse's butt often. Customers didn't like looking at hay-shit hanging out when they went for a ride! Anyone see the video of the elephant that sat on his trainer and the trainer's head went up its butt? WOW!

Note that my article discusses Kerry's record, public statements, and his platform. I intentionally did not discuss anything extraneous to the issue, such as his personal habits, who his parents were or were not, or what he may have done outside of the political arena. I find it very interesting how discussions like these rapidly devolve into a Bush bashing session focusing on his youthful exploits or express a total lack of faith in our electorial system. I suspect that the reason for this is because when it comes to John Kerry, I am spot on correct!

*I suspect that the reason for this is because when it comes to John Kerry, I am spot on correct*

We've been rumbled folks!

You are so correct. We don't agree so you are right and we are wrong!

Damn it all to HELL, foiled again! Shit!

So what? This lefty is no fan of John Effin' Kerry. The duly elected senator's flaws don't make Poppy's boy more palatable or worthy by comparison. If either wins, decency loses.

Get ready for the coming GOP meltdown, the complete liquidation of the regime.

If it doesn't happen this election, it will happen shortly afterwards. Read it below and weep. This moral filth will soon be politically destroyed.

I think it's better that it happens after the election, pace Max below, so that the defeat of the regime will be absolutely and totally complete.

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000390.html

Good riddance to the two party system and the United States as it currently exists. The world will be better off without it.

stating that you are correct accomplishes nothing other than pushing around a few harmless air molecules.

the supposed flip-flopping issue is a favorite of many. EVERY politician does this (including pres. bush...oh my!), for all sorts of reasons...and has nothing to do with a candidate's qualifications.

Its so entertaining to hear people refer to the Bush administration as a regime. While technically the term is correct, we here in democratic America refer to our leaders as administrations. We usually save the word regime for dictatorial groups that take their positions by force. If you bring up Florida, I will have to explain the electorial college, so lets just skip that whole discussion.

I do agree with this statement:

"If either wins, decency loses."

Has there been a presidency in recent memory where this wasn't true? Still Bush gets my vote this November.

As far as political flip-flopping, I agree, everyone does it. But Kerry's flops have been to the extreme and clearly poll based. Bush flip flops when it makes sense to change direction, regardless of whether the decision is popular. That to me is leadership.

and Ms Tek, you misunderstand completely. I said what I said, instead of attacking my article on it's merits, the attacks became of a personal nature towards Bush. That means that yes, I am right. If there was a reasonable retort, I would assume that people who disagree would use it rather than just attack bush on some of his antics as a younger adult.

Additionally, I am not really looking for a saint to be elected. Given that substance abuse affects over 60 million people in this country, maybe our elected leaders should have some first hand experience in dealing with this problem, and actually succeeding. Note that I also have no problem with a president who occassionally get some friendly time at the hands of an intern. Seriously.

heck, maybe that's what our pols need...more friendly time with interns.

make 'em relax a little.

;-)

Well then... I should be elected.

If elected, I promise to have a good hard screw on the desk in the oval office and make sure that I have my drink on the weekend. I'm single, I've never been involved in anything illegal and have a clean criminal record, not questions. I tend to get down and dirty and in the trenches to hear what people have to say.

If you can forgive that I am a woman, independent and have more tattoos than a sailor, may I be president, please?

BTW... If there are personal attacks on Bush thad does not make you right. False logic. Let's use an example, shall we?

If you said that Hitler was swell because of how he stimulated the German economy and for a time, brought Germany out of a depression, and then I said yeah, well he wrote crazy books blaming Jews for his own inadequacies and must have been a male ho since he had syphilis, that wouldn't make you right. One has nothing to do with the other. Apples to oranges doesn't mean that you can get juice from rocks.

How about "Anybody but Bush, Kerry or Nader"? Nobody is truly qualified to be President; not even someone who already was (or is) President.

Sadly, Presidency is both on the job training and a soul-eating job that fundamentally changes each person. Look at pics of GWB back in 2000 for proof of just how his appearance has changed in a scant few years.

I think we should make the election a reverse lottery. If you want to be Prez, you put your name in, and once everyone who wants to has done that, you randomly choose anyone who didn't put their name on the list.

Maybe then the partisan crap can stop and people will start to think for themselves again. After a couple random presidents, we can all band together, rep and dem, to really figure things out without trying to bolster one party or the other.

Personally, there was a rather nice golden cow that was featured in Chicago for "Cows on Parade" a few years ago that I would think would make an EXCELLENT choice. At least we wouldn't have to wonder if the cow was horny or not.

*pah dum, dum*

joshowitz5, what about those of us who are neither rep or dem?

joshowitz5, what about those of us who are neither rep nor dem?

I am a registered Independent. I continue to wonder where my Independent Party candidate is....

But for those of you who are like me and are neither Red nor Blue, I say YOU should run for President.

I'd run, but I couldn't handle negative ads. I have trouble when the guy at Subway forgets to tell me to have a nice day.

I'd run, but I don't count myself as an American citizen and I find politics immoral. Principle über alles...

As far as political flip-flopping, I agree, everyone does it. But Kerry's flops have been to the extreme and clearly poll based. Bush flip flops when it makes sense to change direction, regardless of whether the decision is popular. That to me is leadership.

Kerry's flops have been to the extreme? Kerry's? What about the flip from protecting America from WMD to the flop of freeing the Iraqi's from Saddam? As far as I know, Kerry has never flipflopped a reason for war, after it's begun.

Apparently now, Bush is an apologist as well, and also still needs to apologize to the American people for detouring the war on terror, as well as basing numerous world altering decisions on continual faulty intelligence.

So according to your original post where you said The bottom line here is that America does not need an apologist, socialist leaning flip-flop artist to be elected president., the only difference then is between socialism and a theocracy. But since your commentary of Kerry is full of factual errors, misleading assumptions, and other O'Reilly styled scare tactics, we'll have to settle for the fact that my vote will pretty much be canceling yours out.

Shrub is a flipflopping, lying, miserable failure.

the negative ads (on both sides) drive me nuts.

i guess it doesn't bother too many people (and appears to sway a great deal)...but they play over and over and over again and the populace seems to accept the stuff as 'fact'.

Ms. Tek, Hitler could never be defended, and Bush is hardly hitler. My point is, if you have a legit argument, then argue it, and get off of the personal attacks. All I ever hear of bush are personal attacks on who he is. The only attacks on his record or actions are filled with factual errors and misleading assumptions.

Which brings me to boomcrashbaby. Please outline exactly what is in error or misleading, if I am wrong, then I'd like to know it.

Ah... but I never asked if hitler could be defended nor did I ever say that Bush was Hitler. ;)

My point here is, look at this whole discussion. My article cites specifics about the Kerry campaign. I give specific reasons, looking at his career and the things that he says he will do, as reasons for why I feel that he cannot be president.

In response, Bush has been attached by being called:

Poppy's boy
The Shrub
Miserable failure
etc

If my article was just a collection of attacks like these on Kerry, it wouldnt be worth the webpage it was written on. Did my article refer to Kerry as the Amazing Botox boy? Did I talk about how his forehead is more interesting than his campaign? I had the respect for this audience to stick to specific political issues. I expect the same in return, and if I can't get it, then i must be right.

and please dont take this as me being angry or anything, I am really not. I love the conversation. But lets have the conversation. Someone says bush is a lying failure. Ok, based solely on the fact that that someone said it? I can't argue with you if you provide no reasons for why you feel this way.

Also, with regards to bush flip flopping on Saddam - that was for your benefit, not mine. For those of us who can remember 1998, 1991 and before, we already knew about the threat of Saddam and we understand that ALL of the reasons specified make sense and are valid, whether or not the stockpiles have been found.

!!!!!!!!

I expect the same in return, and if I can't get it, then i must be right.



No. That is illogical. That is not how the world works. Just because things don't go the way you want them to doesn't make you "right".

OK, here's some factual stuff about Bush's flip-flopping:

(from http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040506-083649-9984r )

-- U.S. Marines issued a number of ultimatums to the Fallujah rebels holding out in the rebellious town, then cut deals with them and settled on allowing the newly formed Fallujah Brigade to take control of the town. Some members of the new brigade are former militiamen who fought the Marines.

-- Banishing former Baathists then naming a Baathist Republican Guard general to command the Fallujah Brigade, then only a day later ousting him and replacing him with another former Iraqi army general.

-- Calling Iran a member of the "axis of evil," and then negotiating with Iran over the Moqtada Sadr debacle.

-- Sidelining the United Nations on Iraq and now placing great hope on Lakhdar Brahimi, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's special envoy to Iraq, hoping he can pull a proverbial rabbit out of the Iraqi hat.

Also, the lack of funding for No Child Left Behind, the whole Condi 9/11 business, the change from compassionate conservative to the homophobic president who went from States Rights to Constitutional Amendment.

But, really, they all flip-flop, they all fail in one way or another.

Frankly nothing can make me "right" except a GOP voter registration card :>

And I agree, the lack of a coherent argument doesn't automatically make me right either, but it's close enough for me.

Joshowitz, I would disagree that any of those are flip flopping. There is a difference between changing direction and changing principles.

All of the iraq issues are in my opinion moot as we are still figuring out how best to rebuild this society. It's natural for some people to be considered enemies at first and its also natural to make friends with enemies from time to time.

As far as Iran being labelled an axis of evil nation, does that mean all diplomatic contact should be discontinued and we should mobilize for war? We called them an axis of evil state because they are an axis of evil state. They harbor nuclear weapons, they's love to own the kurds, their government is seriously corrupt and not transparent. Their people are abused. We are working with them to change that. Its all diplomacy, hopefully we wont have to go the same road as we did in Iraq.

What we are doing with the UN in iraq, well this is a great opportunity for both the US and the UN. At the outset of the Iraqi conflict, the UN was broken. Our semi-unilateral action let them know that they needed to take action. We also have the completely superficial need to show the world that our work in Iraq is multilateral. UN involvement, as meaningless as it will be, will help calm down the people who blindly chant no unilateral action. Basically Bush snubbed the UN (rightfully) and now he gets the benefit of their help. Great work.

No child left behind? Its called budgeting.

These are not flip flops, this is politics, and damn good politics in my opinion.

And I agree, the lack of a coherent argument doesn't automatically make me right either, but it's close enough for me.



And there we have it. At least you can admit that. I respect you for that.

You're all right. They both suck. Quit being suckers to the two party system and vote John Hagelin and Natural Law in 2004.

/end hopeless idealism

No child left behind? Its called budgeting.

geezuz, that's such a rationalization.

if a dem touted an education program as being the greatest thing since sliced bread (which pres. bush has basically done)..and then failed to fund it, you wouldn't be labelling that as mere 'budgeting'.

but he didnt fail to fund it, he merely failed to fund it the way the democrats would like. The purse strings need to be tightened in these economic times, we don't have a dot com gold rush and the resultant tax revenues filling the coiffers.

I'd like the chance to respond to your questions for specifics of what was inaccurate, but it's going to take me awhile to break it down and gather the appropriate references. It's a lengthy post.

For those of us who can remember 1998, 1991 and before, we already knew about the threat of Saddam and we understand that ALL of the reasons specified make sense and are valid, whether or not the stockpiles have been found.

I remember Desert Storm, Kuwait and I know that Saddam supported terrorism. The claim laid before the world was that we had to protect American people from WMD. We did not lay justification to the world opinion that we were doing it on behalf of those Iraqis who Saddam tortured.

Saddam needed to be removed, I do not dispute that. As for saying 'the threat of Saddam', in addition to remembering all those dates you mentioned, I also remember our tanks going all the way up to Baghdad with such little resistance the world was caught by surprise. I also remember a desperate, dirty man hiding in a hole.

Saddam needed to be removed, but by doing it Bush's way, it was a phyrric victory. Saddam was only a Knight in the War on Terror, and we sacrificed our Queen, our Bishop and our Rook to get him. And now we get to shoot at people who throw homemade bombs at us, cuz they see us as invaders. How many of these people were terrorists BEFORE we invaded Iraq? Meanwhile, Al Queda, completely separate from Iraq, has morphed and blended itself into dozens of societies/cities/nations so that now tanks and machine guns are completely ineffective against it and still we feel we're winning. If you ask me, Bush is following Osama's Will-O-the-Wisp, which is not the sign of a good commander.

Good job James, always glad to hear from you. I am not quite as rosy on Bush but I agree with your basic conclusions and the war on terror is my focus. At least I know Bush takes it as seriously as I do - it's very very difficult and this is an extremely trying time. I get discouraged also, but I just don't see an alternative, and Kerry does not inspire cofidence in this regard.

I find it shocking, in a sense, that Bush is actually gaining in the polls at what could be his lowest point. But I also think his apology yesterday could be a turning point for the better.

As of this writing, nearly a million new jobs have been created since January 2004.

The real stat to worry about is that since Bush got in, the net job loss is still over 2 million. Worse, that does not include jobs that are needed for the growing population but were not created. Since Bush came in, that's over 4 million. The net effect is that we're still more than 6 million jobs shy since your guy got control of things.

Worse, the working-age population is increasing 137,000 per month right now, so we need 1.6+ million jobs created per year just to stay even.

Another plan Kerry has to improve the economy is to raise taxes. He has pulled back from his initial posture of rolling back all of Bush's tax cuts, but he would roll back tax cuts that primarily benefited "the wealthiest Americans." It's hard to tell exactly who he is talking about

Kerry is quite clear - those making more than $200,000/year would get their taxes rolled back.

And even Greenspan is saying that the huge deficits are leading to huge problems. Since Bush became this country's fiscal manager, the continuous deficits have increased the cost of crude oil 40%. Note that this is because of the devalued dollar caused by the record-setting deficits - crude oil prices are down 1% in Europe over the same time span. More important than the hit we take at the pump ($2.20/gal here) is the increased energy cost to business.

Worse, the deficit is going to raise interest rates and has the potential for causing international instability.

Using taxes to "stimulate the economy" only makes sense when the country is in a "credit crunch" and lacks liquidity, while it has a high savings rate. When Bush (and the 535 Rich On The Hill) decided to reward the wealthy, there wasn't a hope in hell that the tax cuts were going to cure the problems. And they didn't.

Anybody but Bush is a rational start on a solution.

Do you know why we were able to drive all the way up to Baghdad relatively unopposed? Because we WON the Gulf War. Our no-fly zones and UN sanctions kept Saddam in check. He never completely recovered. He was bad but we sacrificed so much to get the wolf in the cage, and everybody thinks that's so good, they've all forgotten there's still a wolf loose in the hen house, and now she's had pups.

Ms Tek, I appreciate that. I respect you too (although this is beginning to sound like a morning-after conversation). Seriously, I have lots of love for all of my fellow humans with opinions.

Eric, thanks for the kind comments. I too get discouraged. Living in NY, it seems like NO ONE will vote for Bush, and he has made some very bold choices, and some have not worked fully to his advantage. Still, he is the only real choice in 2004. And I have a soft spot for his toughness following 911, he is like that guy who beat up the bully in school.

Boom, I kinda felt that this type of insurgency would happen, street fighting, soldiers dying, etc. You have to figure that taking over a country is going to result in bloodshed on both sides of the line. When people make silly claims like Bush went to war to get re-elected or Bush went to war to avenge his father, it makes me crazy. War is so unpredictable, and Bush knew this going in. If anything, waging war in Iraq would hurt his presidency, and he knew this (if I knew it, certainly he did). This wasn't a war for oil, because no oil can pay for even one human life. From that perspective, Bush's decision to pursue Saddam was an incredibly bold move - he did after all go against the UN and many countries who screamed foul. However, I will argue that this bold move was also a necessary one.

OBL's stated reason for attacking us was among other things, our presence in saudi arabia. We were in Saudi Arabia because of Saddam Hussein. After 911, and knowing that our presence in SA as predicated by Saddam was a factor, how could the president not see the connection?

Saddam was a supporter of terrorism, he paid suicide bomber families in the palestinian territories, he secretly supported terror. He manufactured bio and chem weapons. That we havent found stockpiles doesn't change the FACT that we did find mechanisms to produce WMD's. If Saddam was supporting terror in Israel with money, how much of a stretch is it that he would support terror in other places with weapons that he created?

The final question is, what kind of positive effect would a free democratic iraq have on the entire middle east? That's Bush's grand plan. I agree with it.

To say that the

If you go to pollingreport.com, you'll see that he's not gaining in any single national poll.

What a disgusting political regime we live under. I join the majority of people in democracies worldwide in condemning the Bush Administration as an utterly despicable regime, absolutely without legitimacy, absolutely without moral authority, and absolutely without any right to wrap itself in the Constitution.

The photos and videos not yet released, Rumsfeld says today, make what's out there pale by comparison. There are indications from Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker, who surely knows, of unspeakable acts against children. Children.

Only if the United States government is completely replaced at all national levels this November can there be any hope of salvaging the Republic. I think that's very unlikely.

For those young enough and untethered enough to leave this country for a place like Canada, I'd encourage you to do so. It's the only way to get the blood off your hands.

The Bush Administatin is a disgusting, filthy, vile regime. I think Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc., should be piled in a pyramid and forced to bark like dogs. It's the least they deserve.

Morning after convo?

I thought EVERYONE just left once the bastard fell asleep like I do!

;)

Hal,

The fact is that being an American doesn't guaruntee a right to a job. I've been working long enough to remember the world pre-internet boom. Way back in those days (1996-97), 5.5% unemployment was considered FULL employment, meaning all who could be employed were. Our unemployment rate in this country these days is 5.6%. During the Net boom, it was around 5.0%.

Yes, Kerry is quite clear about increasing taxes for those making 200K as soon as he gets into office. But there will be plenty more tax increases that follow. Don't forget, if you make as little as $55,000 a year, you are in the top 25% of earners in this country. Do you really believe Kerry won't expand his definition of wealthy?

Our deficits have devalued the dollar, but the impact on oil prices is also a result of the addition of ethanol which makes for cleaner emissions, a tight hold on production by OPEC, and alot of futures manipulation in Europe. Frankly, the value of our dollar declining is more of a punishment by the EU than anything else. We will still be the stronger economic power regardless of their feline like swats at us.

As far as the deficit raising rates, rates are so low, they have to be raised. During the net boom, rates were 350 basis points higher! Come on!

The fact is, our current governmental deficit is meaningless as compared to the amount of tax revenues collected yearly. Our current deficit is around 600 billion. We will be collecting 120 TRILLION in the next ten years.

Economists argue that the effects of deficits and tax cuts are highly inflated by politicians anyway. I would agree, given that whats important is our GDP and our trade gap (which has been vastly improving). Deficits are much ado about nothing.

But there will be plenty more tax increases that follow.

pure conjecture.

If elected, Bush will be forced to raise taxes to prevent the U.S. military from collapsing in on itself. He'll have no choice at all. Just crunch the numbers.

At least Kerry admits that taxes will have to go up.

Of course, I hope taxes don't go up because I'd love to see the U.S. military collapse in on itself. That would be the most glorious day of my life.

Mike,

Thanks for the unsubstantiated, america bashing hate. That's exactly what I am talking about. Move to Canada for all I care! Someone pass the freedom fries!

And let me add, deficits are much ado about nothing, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt do anything about them. We are at war, coming out of a recession, it is natural to have a deficit given what we've been through. However, you cannot scream foul when every social program isn't fully funded and then also complain about deficits.

and this fear of raising taxes is a red herring.

taxes are being raised right now...as state and local governments are squeezed...property taxes are skyrocketing.

so deficits are NOT meaningless.

If you dismantle the EPA, the Education Department and the Veterans Administratin, you'll still have to raise taxes to prevent the collapse of the U.S. military.

So, by all means, let's not raise taxes. Read my lips, and watch the wheels fall off the tanks, the jet fighters land for lack of fuel, and--most magnificent of moments--the soldiers mutiny for lack of pay.

Please, please, please, don't raise taxes. Make my life.

Wow, Mike, you must really hate this country. Too bad we are so powerful huh? Our military collapse? Don't hold your breath, although I do take issue with your attitude towards American men and women who are overseas doing our job in dangerous places like Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere. Your statements of ill will towards our servicemen and women show an evil thats worse than anything the U.S. president has ever done.

As far as pure conjecture? Not true. Look at Kerry's long long record of tax increases. See Bush isn't asking for a tax increase because he wont need one. Tax cuts and the resulting positive economy will pay for the deficit, or at least part of it. Spending cuts should take care of the rest. Don't forget what I said in my last post:

Current deficit 600 Billion
Total Tax rev over ten years 120 TRILLION

This is not voodoo math.

Local taxes would have been raised anyway. Don't forget, all governments, local to federal, were spending like it was 1999 even though it was 2002. This is why deficits popped up, this is why taxes went up, at least in states with dem candidates who were elected.

I hate the civilian military command, not the hapless soldiers who are forced to carry out its loathsome orders.

I support the Republic, which, the Founding Fathers said, could not survive a bloated, unaccountable military.

Those who support the current policies are the enemy of the American republic. The Administration is guilty of high treason against the Constitution for its conduct. It is un-American.

I'm a real American. You're an apologist for terror.

ok, i get it.

republicans = good
democrats = bad

this country is fucked.

Hapless soldiers? I know a few of these soldiers who might object quite vociferously to your characterization. I will remind you that our military is voluntary as well as the BEST military the world has EVER known.

Unaccountable military? We have quite a few briggs for these idiots who felt the need to torture those Iraqi prisoners. And be sure that they will be used.

As far as your unsubstantiated and childish comments about our president and me, they are meaningless to me. But it does show all of us a little something about you.

Like I said. This is what a terrorist does. And I'm sick of paying for terrorism:

http://www.itv.com/news/623337.html

Am I saying Iraqi torture is right? No. And all of the people who were idiotic enough not to understand the impact of this stupidity should be fried (not fired). But this isn't representative of the majority, and it will be stopped. Ultimately, it is immaterial to the war in Iraq and its an even lamer argument.

Dems arent bad. I liked Ed Koch. I even liked Clinton and voted for Gore in 2000. I am not affiliated with any party.

The point of this article is, in 2004, I will vote Bush, as Kerry is NOT an alternative.

The fact is that being an American doesn't guaruntee a right to a job.

Straw man.

Yes, Kerry is quite clear about increasing taxes for those making 200K as soon as he gets into office ... Do you really believe Kerry won't expand his definition of wealthy?

Not only that, I think he's more likely to make certain the Alternative Minimum Tax is removed.

The fact is, our current governmental deficit is meaningless as compared to the amount of tax revenues collected yearly. Our current deficit is around 600 billion. We will be collecting 120 TRILLION in the next ten years. I would agree, given that whats important is our GDP and our trade gap (which has been vastly improving). Deficits are much ado about nothing.

The comparison doesn't matter (even when slanted by using one year for the deficit, ten years for the collections), and economists disagree with you on the deficit. The evidence is that they're right so far, and are becoming more and more concerned about it week by week.

Here's some current info: Greenspan Warns of Deficit as Big Threat to Economy 5/07/2004 [NYT subscription, but the story is all over the place today].

Straw man? Do you mean "Draw, man?" I will accept your draw.

The comparison does apply, because the tax cuts last for ten years. But lets do 1 year to 1 year

600 billion owed, 12 trillion in revenue.

That's like holding a credit card with $5000 debt while making $100,000 a year. Is it good? no. Is it a serious problem? Also, no.

And as far as Greenspan's recent comments, this is nothing new. He has always said that tax cuts need to be accompanied by equal spending cuts. Bush has been cutting spending, and has gotten chastized for that as well. You cannot have it both ways.

"As far as your unsubstantiated and childish comments about our president and me, they are meaningless to me. But it does show all of us a little something about you."

Notice how it's perfectly ok for prowars to accuse everyone elseo of being anti-American and unpatriotic, but once they're accused of the same things--on far more justification, in my view--they scream foul. They can dish it out, but they can't take it.

Before this continues, I'd just like to thank everyone for taking the time to read my article and get involved in the discussion. Even if you don't agree, at least you were open to reading it, which is what makes sites like this so great.

Thanks guys.

600 billion owed, plus the as yet unnamed amount that this war will cost.

i'm sure you're not worried though, as it will either be:

a. the democrats fault
b. not a problem due to some other equally shifty mathematical contruct

Mark, it's 600 billion including the war. We've been paying war costs all along. Remember the 87 billion dollars?

It's not shifty math, we are getting $12t in tax revenues this year and $600b in deficit, you do the math. It won't kill us and it is to be expected.

But Mike, I never accused you of anything. I stated my opinion and then defended my position. Can you honestly say the same?

How about:

ANYONE BUT KERRY AND BUSH????


Like MICHAEL PEROUTKA, Constitutional Party Candidate for President. Conservative, yet not military crazy like Bush, nor too "libby" like Kerry.

Check him out and let's get everyone in every state to vote PEROUTKA in 2004.

"But Mike, I never accused you of anything. I stated my opinion and then defended my position."

You said:

"Thanks for the unsubstantiated, america bashing hate. That's exactly what I am talking about. Move to Canada for all I care! Someone pass the freedom fries!"

Right, that was not an accusation. It was true! You did not back up any of the things you said with facts, and your comments show a true hatred of the U.S. military and the government as well as each individual involved.

You literally told people to move to canada. If that isn't unpatriotic, I don't know what is.

Please excuse me if you feel that I was not accepting your dishing by describing your comments as hateful towards america, but read your own posts! They are quite hateful towards America.

It's all good, if you say that you love this country, then this country loves you too, and that includes me (gasp!).

In the 1930s, people who loved Germany the most were the ones who left, and told others to do so.

I would have liked to see a McCain or Lieberman candidacy. I know, McCain has that insane glint in his eye, but when he speaks, it sounds so right! On the other hand, Lieberman has some excellent ideas, but he was ridiculed as being a republican by some in the democratic party. And people wonder why the democrats lose!

Really? When we start COOKING people I will be right there with you telling fellow citizens to leave. Till that time Mike, I have to stand on the other side with my country.

You cannot compare the US with Nazi Germany, there simply is no comparison. We are not trying to engage in genocide, we are not attempting to even take over Iraq. We are just trying to establish a free society there. The US has stood against people like Hitler, Hussein, and plenty others, and these days are no different. For the sake of this discussion, could we reduce the dramatics just a little bit?

My point is that the principle of defense for one's country often requires people to do things like leave it.

I'm saying that if you support American democracy, you should put the Constitution in your pocket, and take it somewhere where it can be implemented.

This is what the thousands of draft dodgers did in the 60s and 70s. They went to Canada, and have been at the forefront of the movements to legalize gay marriage, decriminalize pot, oppose the war in Iraq, and defend the great single payer health system.

I accept that but I don't accept that things are so bad here that anyone has to leave. Don't forget, GWB still has to be re-elected. He isn't king.

Single payer system, oy vey. I don't want the canadian healthcare system. Most canadians don't either - fully 80% wish they had a second system not managed by the government. The grass is not greener.

America sure has it's foibles, but this is still the best country on the continent as well as on the planet. Our war in Iraq is proof of this, not a detriment to it. I cannot make excuses for those fools who abused people in Iraq or Afghanistan, at the same time, I won't condemn them for it and I can understand that war is a dangerous emotional place. I also fully understand that the war has surfaced alot of issues for us to deal with. Thing is, those issues were there before, we just didn't think we had to deal with them.

I agree with the plan to bring democracy to Iraq, ultimately it will help us, as well as all of the Arabs oppressed by the real evildoers in the middle east - the leaders of countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan - countries that have absolutely no regard for their people but care deeply about the power they weild. By contrast, we care deeply about the power we weild for the sake of our people.

America sure has it's foibles, but this is still the best country on the continent as well as on the planet

really? so you've lived in ALL of the other 'westernized' countries, so that you can base this statement on 'fact'?

Here is something I wrote in March of 2003:

In a 2000 Angus Reid poll referenced on the Conference Board of Canada's website states that over 80% of Canadians feel that their systems of healthcare (there isn't a single healthcare system in Canada, each province governs it's own) are in a crisis. Problems stem from poor access to doctors and an overall lack of accountability by providers. The Conference Board reports that as many as 50% of Canadians support greater privatization of the health care systems, and few support additional taxes to fix what may be wrong.

http://www.mbgz.com/view_commentary.html?commentary_id=10

Click the link, there are links to the conference boards survey.

The U.S. has the greatest healthcare system in the world. It has some serious problems, but it can be fixed, it does not need replacement.

Straw man? Do you mean "Draw, man?" I will accept your draw.

No, "straw man" it is (as in a logical fallacy).

The comparison does apply, because the tax cuts last for ten years. But lets do 1 year to 1 year. 600 billion owed, 12 trillion in revenue. That's like holding a credit card with $5000 debt while making $100,000 a year. Is it good? no. Is it a serious problem? Also, no.

Your analogy is even worse than your comparison.

Then, your facts aren't right.

The one year deficit is only the one year deficit, but Bush has consistently run deficits throughout his term and the national debt has gone up a couple of trillion dollars under his money management.

Worse, under his policies the deficit is projected to be a deficit as far as the eye can see. In Bush's own "Economic Report of the President" we find the statement:

"Long-run budget projections show clearly that the [federal] budget is on an unsustainable path."

"Most canadians don't either - fully 80% wish they had a second system not managed by the government."

Single payer is supported by the overwhelming majority of Canadians. Both Conservative and Liberal politicians have recently had to backtrack from support for any kind of privatized delivery of hospital services, after overwhelming public outcry, amid disastrous experiments with it in Alberta and Ontario.

And as far as Greenspan's recent comments, this is nothing new.

Actually it is, in intensity and focus.

MARK! YOU GOT ME!!!

I didnt live in every other westernized country, so I don't have any facts to back up that statement. I must admit that my love for my country to some degree influenced my comments.

However, I've noticed that most people that live in other countries, they still want to come here. And I've also noticed that we actually let some of them in. The fact that the rest of the world wants to be here, the fact that we take in all kinds and that they shape our national psyche, and even the simple fact that you referred to it as "westernization" (west = u.s. not the cowboys old west) proves that yes, this is the greatest country in the world. And no, I have not been to all of the others.

Mark, it's 600 billion including the war. We've been paying war costs all along. Remember the 87 billion dollars?

Oh, yeah - in his projections for at least reducing the deficit over the next five years (never mind that it will increase in ten), Bush conveniently left out a number of costs that will be required. From one of my previous links:

The IMF noted that the outcome could be even worse because of Bush's "optimistic assumptions" such as that there will be no costs for Iraq beyond this year (a likelihood somewhere between zero and minus four), extreme spending restraint (have you seen what your Senators and Representatives are doing?) and others.

The U.S. has the greatest healthcare system in the world.

No, it doesn't.

The Myth of Better US Health Care

Mike, you say they want it, but polling says otherwise. Take it up with the conference board of canada. And regardless of canadian failures at privatization, we didn't experience those failures.

Hal, the problem with these projections is that they can say whatever the creator wants them to say - if a value remains fixed (i.e. tax revenues) when it clearly is influenced by the ebb and flow of the economy, then the projections are educated guesses at best.

I can't disagree with Greenspan or you on the point that these deficits are unsustainable, but I would wait another year or so and see how the economy moves before going crazy about it. Greenspan was talking about the long term, not the immediate term.

Also, I think that more than our deficit, the fact that we went through a recession has hurt global economics more than anything. The world is dependent on our trade and the last few years hasn't had much trade. You cannot pin it all on the deficit. And frankly, we had to run a deficit.

Basically, if you are gonna bash Bush for the deficit, then you must also bash Clinton for spending. It's a two part process.

Yes, I've seen that link, but I must wonder, if you were sick, what country would you go to for treatment? Come on now, be honest!

BTW, that link is disingenuous, you cannot compare countries that way.

Japan doesn't have a baby boomer set. Norway doesn't have the GDP that we do. Does any of this take into account our national obeisity issues (a medical problem, but not because of lack of healthcare). You cannot compare countries that are not similar in this way. This is really comparing apples to oranges.

Canada, JG.

The US might have a great healthcare system but good luck trying to use it. In 4 years, we've had to go through 3 HMO's. They're all unethical and deceptive. Got a back ache or can't sleep and want to see a doctor? One's available in 5 months.

What good is having one of the best health care systems in the world if you can't use it?

I recently became ill from food poisoning in New Orleans and had to go to the Tulane University emergency room, in a poor section of the city.

What I saw there was underfunded healthcare on a horrific scale, worthy of a third world country. And that is typical of inner city hospitals throughout this country, which serve millions of people.

Therefore, the United States does not have "the best healthcare system in the world." Period.

if you are gonna bash Bush for the deficit, then you must also bash Clinton for spending

No, that doesn't follow - there's neither connection nor resemblance.

BTW, that link is disingenuous, you cannot compare countries that way.

Of course you can.

Try convincing some health professionals with international credentials of the rightness of your claim and see what response you get [Hint :-)].

Mike, you can't eat too many of those oysters!

There are certainly bad hospitals in the US, but there are plenty of hospitals that are the absolute best in the world as well in the US. What's the best hospital in the world to treat cancer? What about heart medicine? Both right here in NY.

I agree HMOs suck but that goes further to my point, if the government were the only HMO, imagine what that would be like? If we had a recession and had to cut spending or raise taxes, we'd raise taxes, further screwing the economy, all in the name of maintaining healthcare.

Remember when HMO's first came about, in an effort to reduce insurance costs? This was a first step towards a national system. It failed miserably as it was just another cost center. Managed care doesn't work.

The way to fix the system is to limit malpractice suits, lengthen drug patents while setting price limits on drugs, and do away with collective bargaining for insurers so that everyone pays the same price for care. That's a first step towards fixing a broken system.

And I disagree Hal, you cannot compare countries like that. Infant mortality rates, average lifespan, all are determine by so many things other than healthcare. Costs are high, but thats because of a screwed up insurance and malpractice system. It can be fixed!

I'm not one advocating national health care. I don't care much for any program the government has to 'run'. Look at the DMV and tax collecting.

I was just throwing out a comment of not being able to use the technology we have now, rather than posing an alternative.

I don't know what would be best, but letting capitalism (HMO's) do it, totally sucks. The middle class is mired in paperwork and details and has to wait forever. The discrepency between the treatment/facilities of the rich and priviledged vs. the poor should make us all hang our head in shame that we let it continue like it is. One only needs to correlate the infant mortality rate between the classes to see a significant difference that can only be a tip of an iceberg.

Anybody but Bush or Kerry! Nobody for president!

And I disagree Hal, you cannot compare countries like that.

I'll pass your opinion on.

Golden: "Ms. Tek, Hitler could never be defended, and Bush is hardly hitler."

Ah, but the day is young!

(Just an FYI: Shark is officially voting for Bush in 04. Seriously. When someone shits in their own hat, I like to see 'em put it back on. Can't wait for November! GO BUSH!)

Personally, I do not hold it against Kerry for protesting the war after he came back from Vietnam. It's certainly his right to express displeasure with American foreign policy, especially after serving his country and fighting for that freedom.

James, Bush has expressed displeasure with the American foreign policy that was in place before he came in, starting with the Kyoto treaty in 97. And Bush didn't serve his country by fighting for that freedom either, like you acknowledge Kerry did. So it's good to read you don't hold it against Kerry for being able to maintain the higher standard than you place on your current preference.

However, appearing publicly with known communists like Jane Fonda, and accusing his fellow soldiers of wartime atrocities crosses the line of acceptable behavior.

Bush has relationships with many Saudi families. Saudi Arabia is a major source of terrorism. There is a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. But going to a public event where Jane Fonda is also at, is guilt by association? Okay. If you say so. And Kerry committed the crime of accusing fellow soldiers of wartime atrocities? Um, turned on the tv in the last 48 hours?

Then there is the flip-flopping. "I voted for the $87 billion...."

In the spring of 2002, Bush claimed he had all the empowerment he needed to go to war with Saddam, that the resolutions from Congress approving Gulf War 1 and the UN at that time gave him all the legal authorization he needed.

Brent Scowcroft, in the Washington Post, made Bush think twice about saying much more about this. Consequently, Bush adopted Powell's plan to seek both Congressional approval and a new UN resolution. Hence, 1441. Hence, the Iraq War resolution. The fact that Bush needed time to amass his troops meant that little was lost by seeking the appearance of an imprimatur from the rest of the country and the world.

And indeed, in the fall of '02, both Congress and the UN went along with it because they were afraid to stand up to Bush's popularity post 9/11. It is difficult to recall how powerful he was, but at the time he also had a lock on the American press's perception of his administration; no one was asking any hard questions (except for bloggers, and no one was reading them). Had Congress challenged Bush and refused to pass a resolution in '02, he simply would have gone to war anyway. He really was that popular. He would have demonized Congress with his patented viciousness. Just as viciously as he trashed the UN in March, 2003 when it became clear they would not pass a followup to 1441 specifically authorizing war, rather than just "consequences."

In other words, the Iraq resolution was simply a wink-wink nudge-nudge rubber stamp of a vote, necessary merely to perpetuate the facade that the modern Congress actually had a say in the matter of whether the US should go to war. Everyone knew war would come no matter what, so why not support the inevitable?

(response to Kerry's voting on Iraq War taken from "The Iraq War Lie Mutual Embrace" located partway down previous link)

It would have been political suicide to vote any other way.

But the fact is that Kerry, not Bush, voted against this very important spending bill that, had it not passed, would have left our troops without the supplies they needed to survive.

Granting Bush the authority to use force is not exactly the same thing as favoring its actual use, for one thing.

"The body-armor money amounted to just over 1/3 of 1 percent of the $87 billion supplemental bill that Kerry opposed. Kerry did not cast separate "no" votes on popular items contained in the $87-billion package, as Bush and yourself depict him doing. There was one vote on the entire package." source-factcheck.org

The flip-flopping doesn't end there. Kerry's record is rife with inconsistencies too long to list here.

There is a growing number of moderate Republicans who feel that Bush has strayed from the platform he ran on, and turned to a far more neo-Christian agenda that is alienating them. All politicians have inconsistencies in their record, as things come back by again, there are more pork barrel attachments to them, which might change one's vote. Bush didn't keep to his platform. You hold Kerry to a higher standard than Bush.

Kerry has gone on record saying that in his first 100 days in office, he will go on a worldwide tour apologizing for past American foreign policy, and reassure the world that we are ready to work with the U.N. again. If you have never paid attention to the dysfunctional family that is the U.N., this might sound like a good idea.

Personally, I agree with you that the U.N. is a paper tiger when it comes to action/security. America always was and still is the power behind the U.N. However, the political arena extends beyond the White House doors and there is still the benefit of working with the U.N. as it is comprised of the voices of other nations and is costly to be snubbed. As for whether working with the U.N. or not is productive, it is if you see fighting terrorism as involving much more than battling with tanks in city streets. Thankfully, Kerry does.

the U.N. can not be trusted with crafting U.S. foreign policy.

Can you elaborate on how, in the space of a paragraph, we have gone from 'working with the U.N.' to the U.N. crafting our foreign policy?

Further, while the U.S. has made mistakes, we make decisions based on the best information around, rather than trying to win a popularity contest. Is Kerry trying to win the war on terror, or is he trying to be "liked?"

With terrorism and anti-American sentiment in practically every nation on the planet, read your last sentence above again, and think about how much easier the former objective would be achieved if the latter was achieved.

As of this writing, nearly a million new jobs have been created since January 2004.,/i>

Yeah, they're called Kerry Campaign Workers.
No, actually they're in call centers in India.
Okay, seriously, a lot of this is due to Bush's tax rollback of the middle class, giving them more spending power. But this is something Kerry wanted anyway.

Kerry's website says that he will soon be unveiling a plan to create 10 million jobs. No further details on this fantasy plan are available, and I don't expect much. The government isn't here to create jobs - that's what private companies are supposed to do in a capitalism like ours.

Yes, that's what private companies are supposed to do, but thanks to the handiwork of Bush, it's more lucrative for private companies to create those jobs overseas. There is a large contingent of the middle class extremely concerned about outsourcing. Kerry's plan is to encourage companies to create jobs in America and stop shifting jobs overseas for tax reasons. Since that is a legitimate problem, many of us like the idea.

Kerry will eliminate all of the tax breaks that encourage companies to move jobs overseas and use the savings to encourage companies to create jobs in America. Kerry will help jumpstart job creation with a New Jobs Tax Credit paid for by a one-year tax holiday to encourage companies to reinvest their foreign earnings in America. International tax reform is part of Kerry's overall plan to regain America's competitive edge, together with policies to lower the cost of health premiums for companies, modernize our information infrastructure, and increase investments in education.

Plenty of detailed info on the plan is at johnkerry.com.

he would roll back tax cuts that primarily benefited "the wealthiest Americans." It's hard to tell exactly who he is talking about when you consider that by IRS standards, people making over $50,000 a year could be considered "wealthy."

He's been on record as saying it's 200,000 and over. Not 50,000.

it's hard to understand how increasing taxes would improve our economy.

It's to pay for the war, for one thing. It's to pay for the uninsured and for universal coverage. Although I'm not a big fan of the government controlling health care, by his methodology, premiums for the middle class would go down, thereby giving them more money in addition to letting them keep their tax cuts, which helps boost the economy by giving them more spending money AND gives all people health coverage. It's a double win situation. As I said, while I personally don't think the health care service might get much better under the gov.'s rule, it couldn't be worse than it is now. Not for this household. Besides, it's not going to be much of a factor in my own vote as I see much more importance behind other issues like civil liberties, separation of church and state and such. I feel these issues are threatened, whether covered by the media or not, and I feel they need to overrule any conflicting ideals I might have towards health care right now. But that's me, I do know health care will be a major voting issue for millions.

It's doubly concerning that Kerry would put those who are in the greatest need (the most expensive cases), at the will of the bureaucracy that is the U.S. government. Premiums may go down for the average middle class family, but taxes will undoubtedly increase to pay for this, and quality of care will drop to an all time low.

Where do you draw the conclusion that taxes will increase? Do you have any references for that? When Kerry developed his plan, he figured ALL Americans. That already includes those who are in the greatest need. It's not like he forgot to include lung transplants or something. Quality of care drops to an all time low? There are many universal health care setups in nations around the world where that hasn't happened. They rank right alongside the U.S.

Everything works in conjunction. Stimulating the economy by boosting the middle class AND removing the tax burden that has made the middle class carry the rich for years, AND giving the poor and the growing number of middle class who have no insurance, some health care, all works together to make a better, richer nation. Statistics might show that Bush's economy is being stimulated right now (although the 'new' economy hasn't hit this house yet), but what exactly is he doing about the rest?

"When I look back on my years in office," says C. Everett Koop, Reagan's former Surgeon General, "the things I banged my head against were all poverty."

If all people are able to get healthcare, then the odds of running into someone not vaccinated while you are on your business flight drops quite a bit, doesn't it? Lot less colds, flus, etc. to treat. Premiums WILL drop. Business will thrive with the extra productivity. (Supposedly. Personally, I think we all use our sick days, whether we're sick or not).

Come this November, I say anyone but Kerry, but hopefully Bush.

It's been interesting to note, that in my few weeks here, I've noticed a lot of pro-Bush and anti-Bush people, instead of pro-Bush and pro-Kerry people. Kind of corroborates your opening line about people on the streets of NY. I think if the anti-Bush people really want to achieve their objective, they really need to think about how to make that happen. Just being anti-Bush won't do it. It isn't doing it.

Besides, if anybody gets into the White House on a anybody-but-former-president vote, then he will have a huge societal morale problem to deal with when he gets in office which will make it harder for this country to get anything done. Then the anti-Bush people will have to deal with 4 years of gloating and I told you so.