Republicans call convention to order

Falstaff

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ain/index.html

[color=cyan]yep, Bush is getting credit for his leadership and it is about time, after Kerry's impotent appearance at the democratic convention.[/color]
[color=cyan]couldnt have said it better myself.[/color]

ToshiroOC

A big problem I have with Bush is he reduced taxation (good) without reducing the government that needs tax dollars to run (bad). It was quite fiscally irresponsible to keep paying for our over-large government while reducing the amount of money we have available to pay for it. If Kerry increased taxes the first day in office, I would understand the need to pay off the debt the USA owes to its creditors - but at the same time I would continue hoping for a reduction in government followed by a reduction in taxes.

Falstaff

I think it very well could have happened that way, but hey..."9/11" and the war on terror, chasing the bad guys costs some real money, and the country wanted revenge...

ToshiroOC

So if it's gonna cost money, why drop taxes just when you need them the most? That's what bugs me.

digerati

I've always thought of it this way.

When Bush says he's going to do something. He's going to do it. It doesn't matter how bad the result is.

Now Kerry on the other hand...

GutterPunk

haha ^_^....

Aight Bush lowered taxes on the people making a lot of money. yeah how unfair what about the working class. If kerry takes office who is he gonna tax? The working class as his record already shows 90 some votes for it in his time. Talk about complete crap especially when my family resides in the lower middle class. Im all for a straight so and so % tax, every1 is taxed equally. What happened to equality no matter of race, religion, or social status. I wish we could get a tax break, the extra dollars in our perspective go a long way. Paying for your kid's last doctor visit, or allowing the family to go on their first vacation.

Oh well Im still voting for bush and i like what Jeff brought up... well said

Falstaff

I believe that as well, Kerry has to tax someone, and his constiuents would in fact be wealthy people too. Tax incentives and tax credits were instituted to relieve Americans suffereing from Clintonomics, and was the beginning of a policy of fiscal realignment by the president to correct some mistakes. Clinton had a theoretical surplus of funds from his administration, but it was based on temporary measures he created to fill the coffers. What is not accepted but generally true, is that base closures, base realignments, and cost cutting measures to wean government and the military off of the "pork" actually began during the Reagen years, i.e. Gramm/Rudman. The tax relief package that we enjoyed recently was just a drop in the bucket, and meant to fuel spending. It is a more than alltruistic to believe that our economy is built on the backs of the working man, that is simplistic at best. With out strong investments and growth by the captians of industry in our economy, we would suffer much worse, and the consequence for the poor and middle class would be greater. Kerry uses economic numbers that are based on averages as well, so they can work either way for Bush or for he.
The primace that Bush started two wars to bolster the economy is also hotly debated as well, and begs the undeniable question, "did Bush create these conflicts" to enhance his potentiol run for re election in 2004? I say absolutely not. We all would have suffered much less if Bin Laden had chose Germany or France to attack. But all western powers are vulnerable. It is a dangerous game that Europe plays now, seeking out the heads of the Hydra to cut them off, but turned to stone in attempt. Terrorists have been successful at influencing elections in Spain, forcing troops out of IRAQ and Afghanistan, and eroding support for the war against them. I think Bush has come to realize that Europe and other countries are just as ineffective as they were at dealing with terrorists and they were with Hitler, because their power is growing. I dont believe that Kerry can sustain the kind of momentum that Bush has, given the circustances, and neither could Gore. I would not follow a Kerry or a Gore into battle, but I damn sure would follow a Bush. That is the crux of my argument really. Kerry does not have the credibility to lead, regardless of his alleged qualifications. I am not questioning the validity of his motives or the fact that he managed to get three purple hearts, lord knows other more righteous and worthy men did not, because of their political afflliations and background. Kerry is an east coast Blue blood..that much is abundantly true, and historically they will lead us into dire times, that is my greatest fear.
History will be President Bush's greatest friend or foe in this regard, how he is remembered, but as for me, a combat veteran, I would rather follow his flag than Kerry's. That is isnt bi-partisan politics, just my gut, and I think you will see American voting the same way.

RDoggy

Bagdad Bob He never knew how funny he was and how he bacame a cult figure in the us. Funny

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

GutterPunk

am i missing something about rdoggy's post??

drakesteakn

the only thing i hate is when people cry cuz they might get taxed more. u know its going to happen sooner or later. thats the only way to kill the big debt this country has built up from the war. the war has cost more than expected cuz someone didn't realize it wasn't a easy win.

GutterPunk

Well at the end of all wars, we have had a boom, I am scared with kerry in office he is going to end everything prematurely taking out the chance of this boom to happen. As for war i think it was something that had to be done and we needed to make a statement that we arent going to get walked all over, in the sense of going after bin ladin and going to iraq about WMDs, humane reasons, and harboring of terrorists. wmds werent found big deal, but sooner or later iraqis can live freely without threats. they dont know different yet but they will get a sense of freedom. It started with iraqis going to the olympics again and women going too from muslim countries. HOW COOL IS THAT?!?!?!?! This liberation going on in front of us, americans may take it for granted sometimes but they have no clue what its like there, as a soldier who arrived from iraq was telling me conditions there changed in front of their eyes.

Congrats Bush you have my vote

drakesteakn

we are not going to have a boom for another 4 years because of this war on terror going on for a long time. it won't end till we get rid of all the terrorists. so don't expect ur little boom for awhile. and yes the Iraq people where in the olympics. it was wonderful to see them. and woman will not be equal in Iraq for a long time. their religion pervents that from happening. and with us pushing them we will not be their friends much longer. they will fight to keep religion(Islam) their religion. not christianity. so Bush needs to let these people pick how they run their lives. We have no right to push them around and minipulate them.

GutterPunk

yeah it dont matter religion they need democracy tho

And the boom will happen when the troops leave iraq... whenever that is

the war on terror is ongoing and has been ongoing. Just once the troops are back the we get a sense of security no war, and we are able to trust everything again instead of pinching pennies in fear of another depression or a worse recession

RDoggy

Probably .Do you remember who Bagdad Bob was ?I was just laughing at Tosdhiroocs sig.

GutterPunk

aha you meant his avatar?

Falstaff

yeah, Tosh might be trying to be humorous, Bagdad Bob was the mouthpiece for the Hussien regime as our units encircled the various cities, and like Goebbels during the end of the Nazi regime, insisted that all citizens take up arms and push back the invader....But Bob was so funny, he made things up...lol

drakesteakn

but u need to remember that we still have troops all over the world from other wars that have been over more than 30years. soldiers stay after the war is over for a long time. so don't expect anyone to come home soon. and Bush wants to bring troops home from Korea and Germany. BAD IDEA!!!! we need those posts open and troops in both area. Germany is one of the best places to hold troops to and from Iraq. it has one of the best military hospitals we have. we need to stay there. Korea if we move N. Korea will attack S. Korea. we need to protect our allies. Bush wants them to come home, so he can send them to Iraq and Afganistan. its a ploy to look good for the re-election, nothing more.

Falstaff

You know what, if Kerry were elected, he wouldnt change much and get credit for all if it, and use a broad brush to paint his democratic agenda everywhere...then leave it a total mess like Clinton did. Bubba couldnt please all the special interests but he damn sure tried to, and Kerry wouldnt turn down a free hamburger, neither would Clinton..lol.
Want to know something else funny, the disproportionally high interest given to Hollywood actors is inversely proportional to their real effectiveness as spokesman for the Democratic party, actors are terrible spokespersons for politics unless they hold an office.
in fact, actors that become politicians with two exceptions are all became conservative or republican.
Harry Thompson (senator)
A. Swartzenegger (governer)
Ronald Reagan (governer/president)
Sonny Bono (mayor)
Ventura ( a conservative indepedent governer)
Fred Grandy (love boat star)
Clint Eastwood. ( a conservative)

drakesteakn

what is wrong with Regan,Sonny Bono? they did average if not better. i wasn't old enough to tell exactly how good they where?

GutterPunk

okay, actor + politician = SAME THING

You get paid to say something you dont actually do... haha and look good on tv and say thing written for you.

Yes bad thing moving troops but in comparisin to California (about the size of iraq as i was told) there are only a few thousand policemen. Look how many troops we have trying to keep a place stable.... now untill that number is significantly dropped to about 5,000 stationed there, the war isnt completely over.

drakesteakn

humm, can u say 20 years. maybe more. we will be there for awhile

Falstaff

no, not saying that actors that actually serve functionally in a political office are ineffective spokesman, just the ones that draw undue attention to themselves for the sole purpose of influencing a democratic election, and cant hold political office.lol
democrats need actors....it got Clinton elected, lol

GutterPunk

we arent going to have 70,000+ troops sitting in iraq for 20 years no way....

drakesteakn

clinton wasn't a good actor."i didn't have sexual relations with that woman." she blew me off, i didn't do anything.

drakesteakn

we still have that many in germany and Korea.