Who are you going to vote for??

[Sharpieman]

Now that we know that Kerry will be running for the Democrats, who are you going to vote for?

[sachmo71]

Nader.

[CamEdwards]

I'm writing in John Birch.

[AlejandroSosa]

Bush

[Neuqua]

"My butt"

[KevinNU7]

How about a poll?

[Sharpieman]

Oh by the way, if anyone actually cares, I'm voting for Kerry. Bush is a horrible President.

[rkmsuf]

don't forget to include trout in the poll...

[Sharpieman]

dola, I didn't want a poll because I wanted people to respond with reasons why they are voting for whoever...

[CamEdwards]

I'm pretty sure this threat should have started out in flames.

[AlejandroSosa]

Kerry smells like cheerios

[Sun Tzu]

Perot.

[FBPro]

Bush

[WussGawd]

Kerry. Heck, I'd vote for Bozo the Clown if it meant I didn't have to suffer four more years of the stammering buffoon.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Kerry. Heck, I'd vote for Bozo the Clown if it meant I didn't have to suffer four more years of the stammering buffoon.

you have enough money to pay for a computer, internet access, and basketball games, plus enough free time to write a dynasty about your experiences.

yep... that's suffering all right.

[CamEdwards]

dola: flame on!

[Desnudo]

Yeeeeeehaaaaaaaaa!

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

you have enough money to pay for a computer, internet access, and basketball games, plus enough free time to write a dynasty about your experiences.

yep... that's suffering all right.

Maybe it's like a Mary Hart thing and his voice induces seizures or something. That's sufferin...

[Sun Tzu]

Actualy screw Perot.

I'm voting for the Swedish Chef.

[Desnudo]

I like the Swedish Chef. He has charisma. May have to keep him away from the bottle though.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I like the Swedish Chef. He has charisma. May have to keep him away from the bottle thought.

Didn't hurt Yeltsin.

SI

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

you have enough money to pay for a computer, internet access, and basketball games, plus enough free time to write a dynasty about your experiences.

yep... that's suffering all right.

All of which I have in spite of the economic policies of the ruling party. Or do you think 2.5 million more unemployed people is a coincidence?

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I like the Swedish Chef. He has charisma. May have to keep him away from the bottle though.

Actually, having an alcoholic for President might explain some of the policy decisions that usually come out of Washington.

[Desnudo]

It wouldn't be the first time.

[sachmo71]

Wait, wasn't Patty Hearst an option? I'm voting for that crazy broad!

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

All of which I have in spite of the economic policies of the ruling party. Or do you think 2.5 million more unemployed people is a coincidence?

My God... WussGawd is really 2.5 million people! This board is much more popular than I thought.

And the short answer is "I don't believe the Bush administration is responsible for the unemployment of 2.5 million people, just as I believe they're not responsible for the employment of 180 million." Now, if you do believe that the government is directly responsible for employment, I'd make an argument that an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent is awfully good. In fact, that's a tenth of a point higher than 1996, when Clinton was finishing his first term.

[sachmo71]

I vote for CAM!!!!

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

My God... WussGawd is really 2.5 million people! This board is much more popular than I thought.

And the short answer is "I don't believe the Bush administration is responsible for the unemployment of 2.5 million people, just as I believe they're not responsible for the employment of 180 million." Now, if you do believe that the government is directly responsible for employment, I'd make an argument that an unemployment rate of 5.6 percent is awfully good. In fact, that's a tenth of a point higher than 1996, when Clinton was finishing his first term.

Weak, Cam, weak. And since Dubya has been touting his ridiculous tax cuts for the folks who need them least as a "jobs" package, he apparently was eager to take credit for them if the jobs materialized. Since they haven't, therefore, he gets to bear a lot of the blame. That's the way politics works, whether you like it or not. If Bush wants to trumpet successes from the rooftops (though Dubya hasn't had many of those, to be honest), then he gets the opportunity to be called out on the failures.

[hukarez]

Whoa...deja vu!

Kodos! (Or Kang!)

[rkmsuf]

Seacrest/Dunkelman 2004

[Rizon]

I'm voting for my parties candidate. I'm registered with the "Tippytarian" party.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Weak, Cam, weak. And since Dubya has been touting his ridiculous tax cuts for the folks who need them least as a "jobs" package, he apparently was eager to take credit for them if the jobs materialized. Since they haven't, therefore, he gets to bear a lot of the blame. That's the way politics works, whether you like it or not. If Bush wants to trumpet successes from the rooftops (though Dubya hasn't had many of those, to be honest), then he gets the opportunity to be called out on the failures.

So what you are saying is that the people that make the most money should be penalized. Lets screw the rich mofo's. And the lower class, lets give them more programs with the rich peoples money.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by stevew

So what you are saying is that the people that make the most money should be penalized. Lets screw the rich mofo's. And the lower class, lets give them more programs with the rich peoples money.

Seemed to work pretty well through the 20th Century. Of course, you might want to rephrase.

Those who benefit the most from a stable, prosperous economy (the rich) should be expected to carry more of the burden of the cost of that government.

As for programs, I think it's disingenuous to broad brush say that all government programs are good or bad. Certainly, some government programs, like the ones that allow Halliburton subcontractors to bill us an extra buck a gallon for gas or 50% extra for meals in Iraq, are bad. Whereas making sure that a large number of unemployed people don't starve to death might be good. Guess I'm just funny that way.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

All of which I have in spite of the economic policies of the ruling party. Or do you think 2.5 million more unemployed people is a coincidence?

I believe that economic cycles largely move free from our leaders' ability to specifically control them, and that about the only control we have over the ups and downs, is what underlying, fundamental policies we choose to move through those changes. For instance - there was no doubt that both Reagan and Clinton would benefit from economic recoveries. The economy was in a down-swing or moderate up-swing when both were elected; it had to go up again. Similarly, there is little doubt that the false market conditions created by the tech boom, coupled with 9/11 and shaky investor confidence in corporations following Enron/World Com, etc., were going to cause the economy to falter during Bush's term. We simply cannot give Reagan and Clinton full credit for the economy's recovery, and solely blame Bush for this downturn, when nearly any paths those Presidents took would not have changed the ultimate course of the economy.

The fact that you would simply equate bad economy with the President's term in office, without even considering, much less discussing (or, I guess, in your case, it would be rationalizing away) the context in which the economy faltered, is troubling. I may be partisan, but I can tell you that if Gore was President, I wouldn't be blaming him for what occurred, but rather, I would criticize him for the policies he had implemented to take advantage of the obvious economic upswing we will undoubtedly be going through in the coming years.

If you think Bush's tax cuts were bad policy, then vote against him. But if you really believe Bush, and not the confluence of all of those outside sources, caused the economic "problems" (I should point out that 5+% unemployment ain't all that bad) of this country...yikes.

[Ksyrup]

Cam and I are twins...but I got the hair.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Seacrest/Dunkelman 2004

Dunkelman was invited to Iowa, but the bus pulled away while he was taking a whiz on the side of the road, and no one felt obligated to stop and go get him. No, I think on this ticket, Seacrest rides alone.

On a related note, I heard Casey Kasam doing a voice-over on a tampon commercial or some shit like that. Old man's gotta make money somehow, since Seacrest booted his ass to the Top 40 Countdown curb. I just hope this doesn't mean a Rick Dees sighting in Tallahassee...

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Dunkelman was invited to Iowa, but the bus pulled away while he was taking a whiz on the side of the road, and no one felt obligated to stop and go get him. No, I think on this ticket, Seacrest rides alone.

On a related note, I heard Casey Kasam doing a voice-over on a tampon commercial or some shit like that. Old man's gotta make money somehow, since Seacrest booted his ass to the Top 40 Countdown curb. I just hope this doesn't mean a Rick Dees sighting in Tallahassee...

Maybe Seacrest can pick up Dees as his running mate if they can patch things up.

Casey is cooky...he's a big Robert Blake guy. I think Blake is staying at his beach house or something right now.

Nothing is better than the Casey Kasam rant with the long distance dedication...

[sterlingice]

Ok, it's time to unsubscribe from this thread.

SI

[Primal]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Or do you think 2.5 million more unemployed people is a coincidence?

Funny thing is I've had an ad in the Newspaper, at local colleges, and on Monster.com. So far no one wants to work. I'll have those 2.5 million are unemployed by choice.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Weak, Cam, weak. And since Dubya has been touting his ridiculous tax cuts for the folks who need them least as a "jobs" package, he apparently was eager to take credit for them if the jobs materialized. Since they haven't, therefore, he gets to bear a lot of the blame. That's the way politics works, whether you like it or not. If Bush wants to trumpet successes from the rooftops (though Dubya hasn't had many of those, to be honest), then he gets the opportunity to be called out on the failures.

It's no more weak than listening to someone like yourself claiming to have suffered over the last four years because of the president. We complain about the rhetoric used in the campaigns when we're just as guilty of it ourselves.

By the way, I did a news.google.com search of "bush jobs package" and came up with nothing to indicate the president has been touting his tax cuts as a job package. Could you steer me in the right direction?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

And since Dubya has been touting his ridiculous tax cuts for the folks who need them least as a "jobs" package, he apparently was eager to take credit for them if the jobs materialized. Since they haven't, therefore, he gets to bear a lot of the blame. That's the way politics works, whether you like it or not. If Bush wants to trumpet successes from the rooftops (though Dubya hasn't had many of those, to be honest), then he gets the opportunity to be called out on the failures.

God Gawd...

In case you haven't noticed, that's the way politics is played, and will continue to be played. It's up to us, the (supposedly) educated voters, to see through the BS posturing on both (or all 3) sides and decide what the truth is for ourselves. I think both Cam and I specifically declined to give Bush all of the credit for what good has occurred, so your argument that we are only seeing one side of the issue is without merit. The fact that Bush is doing so is entirely expected, since he's trying to get elected.

Do you decide who to vote for solely on campaign ads and other meaningless rhetoric?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Cam and I are twins...but I got the hair.

bastard.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

If you think Bush's tax cuts were bad policy, then vote against him. But if you really believe Bush, and not the confluence of all of those outside sources, caused the economic "problems" (I should point out that 5+% unemployment ain't all that bad) of this country...yikes.

I think Bush has been nothing but 4 years of bad policy. But let's look at that policy a little closer though. We have a President who again tried to sell us trickle down economics. After all, they worked so well during the Great Depression. Hell, Bush's dad derided them in the 1980 campaign against Reagan as Voodoo Economics.

Yes, all that extra dividend money in the hands of the rich certainly created jobs in India, which apparently, to the surprise of several good hard working folks I know who have been out of work for 18 months or longer, is a good thing according to the Bush administration.

Meanwhile, half a million people last month stopped looking for work (they gave up). No private sector jobs were created and lots of folks are losing their homes, their property because unemployment benefits have run out. Are the Republicans concerned about this? Naw, they're trying to make these tax cuts permanent. Meanwhile, we're already running record deficits, and Bush hasn't even come clean on how much the Iraq/Afghanistan wars are going to cost (and courtesy of Spain, those costs in Iraq just went up, regardless of what you think of the new Spanish government).

So, tell me, again, that all of these policy decisions have helped the economy, and try to keep a straight face doing it. Anyway, I'm done here. You all have proven my point. The party in power is always eager to take too much credit for successes in the economy, but happily shirks the blame when their decisions hurt the economy (and I'm well aware that Bush and the Republicans are not the only factor here or even the biggest factor affecting the economy, but they are a factor).

[WussGawd]

So, all I've got to know is who is the Chef adding as a running mate?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Anyway, I'm done here.

Seacrest......out!!!

[Fritz]

moved to here http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...135#post414135

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

I think Bush has been nothing but 4 years of bad policy. But let's look at that policy a little closer though. We have a President who again tried to sell us trickle down economics. After all, they worked so well during the Great Depression. Hell, Bush's dad derided them in the 1980 campaign against Reagan as Voodoo Economics.

Yes, all that extra dividend money in the hands of the rich certainly created jobs in India, which apparently, to the surprise of several good hard working folks I know who have been out of work for 18 months or longer, is a good thing according to the Bush administration.

Meanwhile, half a million people last month stopped looking for work (they gave up). No private sector jobs were created and lots of folks are losing their homes, their property because unemployment benefits have run out. Are the Republicans concerned about this? Naw, they're trying to make these tax cuts permanent. Meanwhile, we're already running record deficits, and Bush hasn't even come clean on how much the Iraq/Afghanistan wars are going to cost (and courtesy of Spain, those costs in Iraq just went up, regardless of what you think of the new Spanish government).

So, tell me, again, that all of these policy decisions have helped the economy, and try to keep a straight face doing it. Anyway, I'm done here. You all have proven my point. The party in power is always eager to take too much credit for successes in the economy, but happily shirks the blame when their decisions hurt the economy (and I'm well aware that Bush and the Republicans are not the only factor here or even the biggest factor affecting the economy, but they are a factor).

Good gracious. Talk about empty rhetoric.

Percentage of mortgages delinquent in in the 4th quarter of 2003: 4.49%, the lowest it's been since the 2nd quarter of 2000 (when it was 5.51 percent). In other words, there are fewer people delinquent on their mortgages now than when Clinton left office. Should we be praising Bush for allowing more people to pay their bills on time?

Percentage of mortgages foreclosed in the 4th quarter of 2003: 1.29%, down from a peak of 1.54% in the 1st quarter of 2002.

All this, by the way, comes at a time when home ownershsip is on the rise.

I'll agree with you on the deficit. Don't like it one bit. But tell me something: if repealing the Bush tax cut for the wealthy will generate an additional $252 billion dollars, and Kerry's healthcare plan alone is estimated to cost $900 billion, and know damn well that the size of the government never shrinks... how's Kerry going to pay for that one program, much less everything else he wants, without either increasing taxes on everyone or adding to the deficit?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

So, tell me, again, that all of these policy decisions have helped the economy, and try to keep a straight face doing it. Anyway, I'm done here. You all have proven my point. The party in power is always eager to take too much credit for successes in the economy, but happily shirks the blame when their decisions hurt the economy (and I'm well aware that Bush and the Republicans are not the only factor here or even the biggest factor affecting the economy, but they are a factor).

Geez, dude, do you even read what people write? I just got done explaining why I didn't think the President should get most of the credit for what will be an upswing in our economy, his policies notwithstanding, and yet here you are again, deriding me for giving the party in power too much credit. The economy was going to suck for a while, and it is going to get better, regardless of who was in power. Again, if you disagree with the policies being implemented to take advantage of the economic upswing, that's one thing - for the sake of argument on that point (because it's not really the point I'm trying to make), I'll give you that that's a legitimate point of contention. But to suggest that Bush's policies are the reason we are where we are, and then to throw your whole argument away on that point in a parenthetical at the end of your last paragraph...? I don't get it.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Wendel Wilkie

[ISiddiqui]

Kerry... though if I had a choice of any politician in the US, I'd gladly vote for McCain for President.