PRESIDENT BUSH IS RE-ELECTED BY A LANDSLIDE

Search

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,361
Tokens
Here you go, Sport:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Kerry's "liberal" top 10 list
New York Post | January 29, 2004


Posted on 01/31/2004 9:08:41 AM PST by SMGFan


Here are the issues where critics accuse John Kerry of being too liberal to win:

1. Against the death penalty in almost all cases.

2. Voted many times against tax cuts.

3. Supported killing military programs, including the B-1 and B-2 bombers.

4. Voted against banning "partial-birth" abortions and against parental notification when minors have abortions.

5. Voted against Defense of Marriage Act, which permits states to refuse to recognize gay marriages in other states.

6. Voted against the 1991 Gulf War.

7. Voted against $87 billion to support U.S. troops and rebuild Iraq.

8. Called for taxing guns and ammunition to pay for anti-crime programs.

9. Pushed to cut CIA funding - then griped about poor intelligence after 9/11.

10. Supported furloughs for first-degree murderers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FOUR MORE YEARS!
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,361
Tokens
Here's another one for you to wrap your mind around:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Insight on the News - Politics
Issue: 02/17/04

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How Low Can Kerry Go?


Remember Willie Horton, the murderer-rapist who struck again while out on one of Mike Dukakis' prison furloughs? When running for lieutenant governor of Massachusetts with Dukakis, John Kerry embraced that policy as well as government subsidies for drug addicts and no death penalty ever for terrorist mass murderers.

There's more, much more in Lowell Ponte's excellent article, "Cash-and-Kerry," on FrontPageMagazine.com.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FOUR MORE YEARS!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
You don't seem to understand the difference between rumor or opinion vs. fact. Show me all this evidence where KERRY SAID he suported. Or some kind of a direct vote on it or something to that effect. These people simply saying it with no evidence means nothing to me.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,497
Tokens
Anything from a credible news organization like the AP or Reuters, kwalder? So far all you've linked to are conservative websites and blog postings.

Or is the Associated Press "liberal" now?
icon_rolleyes.gif
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,361
Tokens
Here you go FSB and sorry about Sharpton's results:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Office of the Press Secretary
February 9, 2004
Tax Relief Is Strengthening Our Economy
TODAY'S PRESIDENTIAL ACTION
President Bush visited SRC Automotive in Springfield, Missouri, to meet with workers and small business owners and discuss the state of America's economy -- and the need to continue to provide tax relief to America's families and small businesses.
New job figures released last week and other recent indicators show that America's economy is strong and getting stronger, and that the President's Jobs and Growth plan is working. According to the payroll survey, 112,000 new jobs were created in January - the largest monthly increase since December 2000 - and 366,000 jobs have been added over the last 5 months. The national unemployment rate in January of 5.6% continues the steady decline from 6.3% in June 2003 - the fastest 7-month decline in nearly a decade. According to the household survey, at 5.6%, the unemployment rate is below the average of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
The President's pro-growth policies are working, but he will not be satisfied until every American looking for work has found a job. The President has outlined a six-point plan for building on the success of his Jobs and Growth agenda to create even more job opportunities for America's workers including: making health care costs more affordable and predictable; reducing the burden of lawsuits on our economy; ensuring an affordable, reliable energy supply; streamlining regulations and paperwork requirements; opening new markets for American products; and enabling families and businesses to plan for the future with confidence by making tax reductions permanent.
BACKGROUND ON TODAY'S PRESIDENTIAL ACTION
In the past three years, President Bush has proposed and signed into law three bills reducing the tax burden on American families and small businesses to spur savings, investment, and job creation.
ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT (Signed into law on June 7, 2001)
Reduced tax rates, including a new 10 percent tax bracket, for every American who pays income taxes
Increased the child tax credit to $1,000 by 2010
Reduced the marriage penalty beginning in 2005
Phased out the death tax
Increased education tax benefits
JOB CREATION AND WORKER ASSISTANCE ACT (Signed into law on March 9, 2002)
Provided 30-percent bonus depreciation for business investment in new equipment
Provided emergency tax relief to New York and other areas affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
JOBS AND GROWTH TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT (Signed into law on May 28, 2003)
Accelerated income tax rate reductions effective January 1, 2003
Expanded the10 percent bracket effective January 1, 2003
Increased the child credit to $1,000 effective January 1, 2003
Reduced the marriage penalty effective January 1, 2003
Quadrupled small business expensing from $25,000 to $100,000
Increased bonus depreciation for businesses to 50 percent through 2004
Reduced the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains to 15 percent
Repealing these laws would result in an immediate tax increase on American families and businesses. For example, if none of the President's tax relief had been enacted, in 2004:
111 million Americans would pay, on average, $1,586 more in taxes;
81 million women would pay, on average, $1,878 more in taxes;
49 million married couples would pay, on average, $2,602 more in taxes;
43 million families with children would pay, on average, $2,090 more in taxes;
11 million single women with children would pay, on average, $921 more in taxes;
14 million elderly individuals would pay, on average, $1,883 more in taxes;
25 million small businesses would pay, on average, $3,001, more in taxes; and
Nearly 5 million individuals and families who currently have no income tax liability would become subject to the income tax.
The cumulative benefit of these three laws for family budgets and business investment is significant. Under these laws, last year:
A family of four earning $40,000 saw tax relief of $1,933;
25 million small business owners saved an average of $2,853; and
26 million investors saved an average of $798 from lower rates on dividends and capital gains, including 7 million seniors who will save an average of $1,088.
The cumulative effect on the economy is just as strong, laying the groundwork for increased economic growth and job creation. According to the Department of the Treasury, by the last quarter of 2003, the tax relief signed by President Bush had:
Reduced the unemployment rate by nearly 1 percentage point below where it would have been otherwise;
Increased the jobs available to Americans by as many as 2 million; and
Increased real GDP by as much as 3 percent.
President Bush has called on Congress to act now to make this tax relief permanent. Failure to permanently extend these tax cuts would dramatically increase the burden on American taxpayers in future years:
In 2005, the increased child credit, additional marriage penalty relief, and expanded 10-percent bracket will sunset, increasing the tax burden on a family of four earning $40,000 by $915;
In 2006, allowable small business expensing will shrink from $100,000 to just $25,000, increasing the cost of capital investments for America's small businesses;
In 2009, the top tax rate on dividends will increase from 15 to 35 percent, while the tax on capital gains will climb from 15 to 20 percent, raising the tax burden on retirees and families investing for their future; and In 2011, the rate relief, new 10-percent tax bracket, death tax repeal, marriage penalty relief, and all the remaining tax relief enacted over the past three years will sunset, resulting in tax increase for every American man or woman who pays income taxes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FOUR MORE YEARS!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
14,280
Tokens
kw, I give up on you. At least folks like Patriot, jointpleasure, Floyd and even KMAN, to an extent, can be reasoned with. I'm concluding that you're hopeless.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kwalder:
Good point eek. Who cares about the Canadiens anyway.They have an inflated sense of self-importance. However, without the USA to protect them they will be an easy Al Qaeda target.

If only they would have treated our honorable President George W. Bush with dignity and respect maybe we would have some inclination to come to their defense.

FOUR MORE YEARS!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember Phaedrus discussing the failings of the American public education system. Funny, at the time, I thought he was exaggerating ...
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,361
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>kw, I give up on you. At least folks like Patriot, jointpleasure, Floyd and even KMAN, to an extent, can be reasoned with. I'm concluding that you're hopeless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, the sign of a liberal who is losing an argument and has no substance to provide.

FOUR MORE YEARS!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
134
Tokens
D2bets,

You got some pair of balls telling Kwalder to check his sources in light of the fact that on at least THREE occasions, perhaps more, I have caught you posting incorrect data or outright lies, and in each case you limped away and didn't even have the decency to admit you were wrong.

Kwalder HAS cited legitimate news sources for his information, sources like the Washington Post and columnist David Broder, not that a simpleton like you would actually know who David Broder was.

Do you deny that John Kerry is against the death penalty? Do you deny that he was the Lt. Governor for Michael Dukakis? Do you deny that he was a strong supporter of Dukakis' prison furlough program that allowed Willie Horton and other creatures to rape and murder once they were furloughed from prison? These are ESTABLISHED FACTS that are part of the normal political discourse. Just because you don't like the facts....it doesn't make them any less true.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,361
Tokens
You are right on point, San Jose. Folks like Lander,wilheim and D2bets are so desparate to defend their Anti-Bush position that they fail to generate credible sources themselves.

As this election moves forward, it will be fun watching them try to disassociate Kerry from Hanoi Jane though.

Or, let's watch them try to prove that while Kerry was an inncoent dupe in voting for the Iraq invasion, President Bush conducted some nefarious plan to bring an entire country to war in order to satisfy his personal agenda.

Also, I'm just dying to hear Kerry's pro-active strategy for moving the economy forward.

It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback or fabricate criticisms of the President with brash,unsubstantiated rhetoric that are reported by a major media source. It's quite another to actually take a real position on important issues and be able to support them. That's the bigger picture.

FOUR MORE YEARS!
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Kwalder,
What on Earth are you talking about? D2 and I have spent triple the time that you neo-con have spent collectively retorting arguments with a healty combination of our own views and supporting references.

The problem is that I have NEVER seen you actually refute anybody's post. You either post a senseless insult or post some lengthy nonsense that aligns with your opinion and when one of us takes the time to refute it then you simple post some other lengthy opinionated article. KW, that is not a debate as you have yet to actually respond to any of our points.

I can't speak for D2, but I dismissed you as incapable of debate. Now, I'm not sure if this problem stems from a shortage of intelligence or if you simply cannot be bothered to put in the time needed to keep up on world events necessary for healthy debate.

I don't know, and, either way, I don't particularly care.

Patriot and Kman offer enough opinion and debate that it unnecessary to waste time with opionionless drones like you and Hansen Brothers.

It's not that we don't like you - it's just that you offer little to the prospects of an interesting debate. I hope you understand.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,361
Tokens
Lander,

You may generalize me as a neo-con, but that is another deluded inference on your part. I happen to be pro-choice and respectfully differ with President Bush on that point. You see, there is room for dissenting opinions as long as those with opposing views do not begin wrongfully using labels like "genocidal" and "coward" on honorable leaders who have integrity.

If you chose to concede the fact that you are about to back an inferior candidate like John Kerry and that President Bush commands your respect and admiration, then fine.

But if continue to insist that you cite supporting unbiased references, I will be forced to share more articles like this with you from the AP:

Thursday, Feb. 12, 2004

Arnot: NBC Dumped Me for Finding Positive News in Iraq

NBC has refused to renew the contract of Iraq correspondent Dr. Bob Arnot. He says the reason is that he dares to find progress.
"In a 1,300-word e-mail to NBC News president Neal Shapiro, written in December 2003 and obtained by NYTV, Dr. Arnot called NBC News' coverage of Iraq biased. He argued that keeping him in Iraq and on NBC could go far in rectifying that," the New York Observer's Joe Hagan reported today.
"Dr. Arnot included excerpts from an e-mail from Jim Keelor, president of Liberty Broadcasting, which owns eight NBC stations throughout the South. Mr. Keelor had written NBC, stating that "the networks are pretty much ignoring" the good-news stories in Iraq. 'The definition of news would incorporate some of these stories,' he wrote. 'Hence the Fox News surge.'"
Keelor told the Observer: "Of course it's political. Journalism and news is what unusual [events] happened that day. And if the schools are operating, they can say that's usual. My response to that is, 'The hell it is.' My concern there is that almost everything that has occurred in Iraq since the war started is unexpected."
In his letter to Shapiro, Arnot wondered, as has the Bush administration, why the network refused to admit positive developments in Iraq. "As you know, I have regularly pitched most of these stories contained in the note to Nightly, Today and directly to you. Every single story has been rejected."
Arnot told the Observer he knew for "a fact" that Shapiro’s problem with his reporting was that "it was just very positive."
© 2004 Associated Press

FOUR MORE YEARS!

[This message was edited by kwalder on February 15, 2004 at 09:49 AM.]
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
NBC has refused to renew the contract of Iraq correspondent Dr. Bob Arnot. He says the reason is that he dares to find progress.

In other words, Arnot is a disgruntled employee that couldn't possibly imagine the the lack of contract renew couldn't possibly be his fault.
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kwalder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>kw, I give up on you. At least folks like Patriot, jointpleasure, Floyd and even KMAN, to an extent, can be reasoned with. I'm concluding that you're hopeless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, the sign of a liberal who is losing an argument and has no substance to provide.

FOUR MORE YEARS!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet, you state -

"You may generalize me as a neo-con, but that is another deluded inference on your part. I happen to be pro-choice and respectfully differ with President Bush on that point. You see, there is room for dissenting opinions as long as those with opposing views do not begin wrongfully using labels like "genocidal" and "coward" on honorable leaders who have integrity."

It would seem, in your view, that there is only room for dissent if it aligns precisely with your dissent.

Indeed, I did generalize you, but I find it a bit comical that one guilty of the same crime moments earlier would cause such a fuss about it.
icon_wink.gif
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,361
Tokens
Whoa lander, are you saying that we should not assign you the label of "liberal"?



FOUR MORE YEARS!
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
According to your reasoning being "pro-choice" disqualifies you from being "neo-con", so perhaps you shouldn't label anybody anything until you've confirmed that their stances are straight down the stereotypical line.

As for your quote - that was directed towards D2, whom incidentally is a huge Clark fan. Pure liberals generally support the Green Party or a Dennis Kuchinich type candidate.
 

There's always next year, like in 75, 90-93, 99 &
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
15,270
Tokens
Anyway, I have to run for the day - perhaps we can pick this discuss up later this week?

GL on your wagers.
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,361
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Anyway, I have to run for the day - perhaps we can pick this discuss up later this week? - lander<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds great lander.When you have time maybe we can compare the Bush and Kerry Economic Plans.

Here's an article from Reuters which reports Greenspan's support for Bush's plan:

Greenspan backs Bush's tax policy

REUTERS , WASHINGTON
Saturday, Feb 14, 2004

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on Thursday voiced support for extending US President George W. Bush's tax cuts, but told lawmakers they should reinstitute rules to ensure they don't drive up the country's debt.
The influential central bank chief recommended finding savings on the spending side to pay for the cuts, and suggested Congress consider scaling back retiree benefits under Social Security and Medicare.
"I am in favor ... of continuing the tax cuts that are in dispute at this particular stage," Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee in answer to a lawmaker's question, wading into a contentious election-year debate.
Since taking office, Bush has won tax cuts totaling some US$1.7 trillion over 10 years. Unless extended, the reductions will begin expiring at year's end, fully running their course by 2010.
The Fed chairman said he would "argue strenuously" for saving on the spending side to fund an extension. The cost of making the cuts permanent could top US$1 trillion over the next decade.
Testifying for a second day on the Fed's semiannual monetary policy report, Greenspan twinned his backing for tax cuts with a call for renewing expired caps on government spending and so-called pay-go rules, which require tax or spending plans be paid for elsewhere in the budget.
The Bush administration also supports pay-go renewal, but only for spending programs -- not for tax cuts.
Greenspan also urged lawmakers to look closely at Social Security and Medicare. Both programs will come under growing stress as members of the baby boom generation begin to retire.
"I suspect ... we're going to have to relook at some of the entitlement spending outlays," he said. "What we have to do, as difficult as it's going to be, is to relook at some of these commitments that were made."
Greenspan said Congress should consider raising the age at which benefits could be drawn under Social Security and Medicare and tie benefits to an inflation index that advances more slowly than the government's Consumer Price Index.
The Fed chief said he was aware politically difficult choices would be required to put the programs on a sound long-term fiscal footing, but added: "The other alternative is to have legislation which repeals the laws of arithmetic."
Absent a fix, Social Security will begin to pay out more than it collects in taxes by 2018, exhausting its trust fund by 2042. The Medicare program faces similar pressure, with its hospital trust fund projected to run out by 2026.
"Greenspan is more directly linking the trade-off between the tax cut on the one hand and Social Security benefits on the other than I think I've seen from him before," said Brookings Institution economist Peter Orszag, an adviser to the campaign of Democratic presidential front-runner Senator John Kerry.
"The only way you could pay for these tax cuts through lower Social Security benefits would be to reduce benefits for current beneficiaries and those about to retire, a step the Bush administration has specifically ruled out," Orszag said.
Bush's push to make the tax cuts permanent faces stiff opposition from Democrats who say they are skewed toward the wealthy. Kerry has called for their partial repeal.
Greenspan echoed the White House's arguments that letting the tax cuts expire would amount to a tax increase that could hit economic growth.

FOUR MORE YEARS!
 

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,361
Tokens
Sorry wilheim, but you continue to use material from known liberal sources such as the The Brookings Institution (see below). On the other hand, Greenspan has performed objectively under both the Clinton and Bush Administrations.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>An excerpt from the Media Research Center's 1994 book by Brent Baker: How to Identify, Expose & Correct Liberal Media Bias.

Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts), consistently rated by various groups as one of the three or four most liberal U.S. Senators, rarely receives an ideological label in news stories, while Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina) is often referred to as "conservative," "right-wing," or "far-right." During the 1990 campaign, an article in Time called Helms an "ultra-right conservative," but described his liberal opponent, Harvey Gantt, simply as "former Charlotte Mayor."
The same pattern holds true for comparisons of the conservative Heritage Foundation (labeled in 59 percent of major newspaper stories) and the liberal Brookings Institution (just one percent), the conservative Family Research Council (45 percent) and the liberal Children's Defense Fund (under 4 percent), and other similar pairings. The conservative organization or individual is regularly labeled, but the liberal counterpart is not. Why? Because the national media see liberal groups as "us" and conservative groups as "them."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FOUR MORE YEARS!
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,875
Messages
13,574,469
Members
100,879
Latest member
am_sports
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com