The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

NC43Hog wrote:

Justice Hog wrote:My biggest concern is not Kerry. I kind of like him, actually. I just can't stand the idea of Edwards being #2.

WATCH IT!!! He's a Carolina Boy.

I'm from NC. It doesn't offend me at all . If the man's inexperienced, he's inexperienced. It doesn't matter where he's from. Besides, Edwards is unpopular here anyways. NC is still going to Bush this November.

joebagadonuts wrote:

Justice Hog wrote:My biggest concern is not Kerry. I kind of like him, actually. I just can't stand the idea of Edwards being #2. That's the main reason I used the word "collectively" in my earlier post.

i've been reading quite a bit about how this is a concern for the kerry camp (edwards' inexperience). most analysts are saying that kerry is banking on edwards' youthful energy and ability to speak and debate well. plus, he's likely to help with south votes. sure seems like he's not a slam dunk.

It's true. The only reason Edwards is on the ticket is because of his looks and colgate smile. They knew that Kerry is too stiff, unattractive, and uncharismatic to sway swing voters. Instead of getting a running mate with experience, they went for Edwards too improve the cosmetic appearence of the ticket. I guess their hopeing women will be charmed by Edwards and vote for the ticket, regardless of the experience or agenda the ticket stands for.

I don't think it will work enough for them to win, but we'll see. Considering how serious things are today, I think it's pretty dangerous to vote on a ticket because it's cosmetically attractive instead of voting for who is qualified to run the most powerful country in the world in the age of terrorism.

Brandon777 wrote:Governor and President are Executive positions. They operate the same. Senators are legislative positions. Senators don't govern. They vote on bills. The white house and the senate are two different animals. It's apples and oranges. Like I stated earlier, most presidents use to be governors, or served in some form of the executive branch, such as vice president or secretary of state.

Kerry and Edwards hasn't even shown up to vote on issues this year because of their own agenda. They havn't been doing their job. They're afraid of losing their seats if they don't win the presidency. They are more concerned with that than representing their states. That's why Edwards is unpopular in NC now. He has done a poor job representing us. At least Bob Dole gave up his seat when he ran for president. Quit being a smarta$$ .

How am I being a smartass???? I just asked a question which I believe I've got an answer from. Your answer is that Bush has tons more experience then Kerry just because he was governor and thats it.

Do you really think that Kerry hasn't worked with the executive branch before? I mean....they make the bills but the bills have to go through the executive to become law. Don't you think he has some experience on working with the executive branch to get bills passed and not vetoed????

I think so. I also think you gain something called experience when you work with people in that other branch.

I also think that when you campaign for 20 long years that you also gain more and more experience on speaking English and it shows when you give a speech.

Redskins Rule wrote:

Brandon777 wrote:Governor and President are Executive positions. They operate the same. Senators are legislative positions. Senators don't govern. They vote on bills. The white house and the senate are two different animals. It's apples and oranges. Like I stated earlier, most presidents use to be governors, or served in some form of the executive branch, such as vice president or secretary of state.

Kerry and Edwards hasn't even shown up to vote on issues this year because of their own agenda. They havn't been doing their job. They're afraid of losing their seats if they don't win the presidency. They are more concerned with that than representing their states. That's why Edwards is unpopular in NC now. He has done a poor job representing us. At least Bob Dole gave up his seat when he ran for president. Quit being a smarta$$ .

How am I being a smartass???? I just asked a question which I believe I've got an answer from. Your answer is that Bush has tons more experience then Kerry just because he was governor and thats it.

Do you really think that Kerry hasn't worked with the executive branch before? I mean....they make the bills but the bills have to go through the executive to become law. Don't you think he has some experience on working with the executive branch to get bills passed and not vetoed????

I think so. I also think you gain something called experience when you work with people in that other branch.

I also think that when you campaign for 20 long years that you also gain more and more experience on speaking English and it shows when you give a speech.

You taking shots at the "ability on speaking english" is lame and weak. If you look at the history of all the presidents, I would say 85% had worked in some form of the executive branch before becoming president. The only president I can think of right now that came directly from the senate to the presidency was John Kennedy. The difference between Kennedy and Kerry is that Kennedy was much more charismatic and not extremely liberal like Kerry. If I'm not mistaken, Kennedy was for big tax cuts, unlike Kerry. IMO, neither Kerry or Edwards is qualified to be president.

You say since Kerry knew and worked with those in the executive branch, he is qualified to be president. I guess that means Bush is more than qualified to be president because of his dad. Plus he has already accumulated four years experience in the white house, along with his terms as governor of the big state of Texas.

Brandon777 wrote:You taking shots at the "ability on speaking english" is lame and weak.

Lame and Weak????? How can it be lame and weak? You have said in numerous posts that Kerry lacks experience. I've responded that being in the Senate for 20 years has given him more experience on speaking English.

Just admit it....Kerry now has more experience then Bush in at least one thing.

Redskins Rule wrote:

Brandon777 wrote:You taking shots at the "ability on speaking english" is lame and weak.

Lame and Weak????? How can it be lame and weak? You have said in numerous posts that Kerry lacks experience. I've responded that being in the Senate for 20 years has given him more experience on speaking English.

Just admit it....Kerry now has more experience then Bush in at least one thing.

I'll admit that I have wasted my time trying to talk politics with someone who has no knowledge on the subject. I'm not a political genius by no means, but I have a solid knowledge on the subject. The only retort you offer is elementry school wise cracks on Bush. It is obvious that your motor runs on delusional emotions instead of logic and fact.

I'll admit that I have wasted my time trying to talk politics with someone who has no knowledge on the subject. I'm not a political genius by no means, but I have a solid knowledge on the subject. The only retort you offer is elementry school wise cracks on Bush. It is obvious that your motor runs on delusional emotions instead of logic and fact.

Typical Conservatives.......can't talk to them. They will bash you the first chance that they get. Just know one thing........I am basing this on logic and fact. Have you even heard a speech by President Bush and by Senator Kerry. Kerry is not the Great Communicator that Reagan was, but at least he speaks like he has a brain.

Brandon777 wrote:I'll admit that I have wasted my time trying to talk politics with someone who has no knowledge on the subject. I'm not a political genius by no means, but I have a solid knowledge on the subject. The only retort you offer is elementry school wise cracks on Bush. It is obvious that your motor runs on delusional emotions instead of logic and fact.

No offense Brandon777, but a little less condescension would do you some good .

NC43Hog wrote:

Brandon777 wrote:I'll admit that I have wasted my time trying to talk politics with someone who has no knowledge on the subject. I'm not a political genius by no means, but I have a solid knowledge on the subject. The only retort you offer is elementry school wise cracks on Bush. It is obvious that your motor runs on delusional emotions instead of logic and fact.

No offense Brandon777, but a little less condescension would do you some good .

Now I'm accused of being arrogant and talking down to people. I'm sorry if I come across that way to democrats but when I see someone insult the president with stupid jokes, I get a bit irritated. I guess I should of realized that Redskins Rule is probably 14 years old, so I shouldn't let him get to me. I forget sometimes that minors post here too.

Every post that I have put up on this thread can be back up with facts. I also added a to some of my post here so I wouldn't come across as "condescending". If someone like Redskins Rule wants to start a debate with me by quoting my posts, he needs to bring something to the table other than silly wise cracks.

Without getting too deep into partisan politics, and I certainly could as politics and government are my passion and calling in life, I will simply say this:

George W. Bush was given four years -- January 20, 2001, to January 20, 2005 -- in order to make his mark on the United States and do the best job he could as president. As I write this, we are currently on July 12, 2004, of that four-year period.

Reasonable people can see that our economy has not improved over that period. Reasonable people can see that the world has not become a safer place over that period. Reasonable people can see that the United States has not made stronger ties and allies on the world diplomatic circuit. Reasonable people can see that the United States has not made more friends amongst states around the world who can be called, at best, skeptical of the message and the principles of the United States and the American people. Reasonable people can see that the federal budget deficit has ballooned to staggering, historic proportions, with no reduction in spending or reliable increase in revenue in sight.

Even if you agree ideologically with President Bush, his advisers, and the Republican Party, it is clear that his impact on the United States so far over his term has been adverse.

While we may speculate as to what Senator Kerry will do if he is elected president, we already know what President Bush has done in the first three and one-half years in that office, and what we have seen from him is not at all encouraging.

At the very least, independent-minded, non-partisan Americans ought to be able to see this election as being a simple choice between an incumbent whose impact on the United States during his presidency has been mostly negative and... someone else. That's really as simple as it can be. Senator Kerry is someone other than President Bush.

We've seen what President Bush does when he is in office. Do Americans want another four years of the same degradation of American power, respect, dignity, and goodwill? Do Americans want another four years of economic stagnation with massive and irresponsible tax cuts for our wealthiest, as well as historic budget deficits?

It's time for someone else. We know what President Bush can do. Now let's give someone else a shot. We have not bettered ourselves as a nation under President Bush's leadership (or lack thereof). The necessity of a change is obvious. Four years from now, we can judge John Kerry's presidency, its effects on America, and make a decision as to whether or not we want to grant him another term in office. If his record is as deplorable as President Bush's, I don't expect that Americans will grant him that honor, nor do I expect Americans will grant President Bush the honor to wreak havoc on our great nation for another term as president.

tsaler wrote:Without getting too deep into partisan politics, and I certainly could as politics and government are my passion and calling in life, I will simply say this:

George W. Bush was given four years -- January 20, 2001, to January 20, 2005 -- in order to make his mark on the United States and do the best job he could as president. As I write this, we are currently on July 12, 2004, of that four-year period.

Reasonable people can see that our economy has not improved over that period. Reasonable people can see that the world has not become a safer place over that period. Reasonable people can see that the United States has not made stronger ties and allies on the world diplomatic circuit. Reasonable people can see that the United States has not made more friends amongst states around the world who can be called, at best, skeptical of the message and the principles of the United States and the American people. Reasonable people can see that the federal budget deficit has ballooned to staggering, historic proportions, with no reduction in spending or reliable increase in revenue in sight.

Even if you agree ideologically with President Bush, his advisers, and the Republican Party, it is clear that his impact on the United States so far over his term has been adverse.

While we may speculate as to what Senator Kerry will do if he is elected president, we already know what President Bush has done in the first three and one-half years in that office, and what we have seen from him is not at all encouraging.

At the very least, independent-minded, non-partisan Americans ought to be able to see this election as being a simple choice between an incumbent whose impact on the United States during his presidency has been mostly negative and... someone else. That's really as simple as it can be. Senator Kerry is someone other than President Bush.

We've seen what President Bush does when he is in office. Do Americans want another four years of the same degradation of American power, respect, dignity, and goodwill? Do Americans want another four years of economic stagnation with massive and irresponsible tax cuts for our wealthiest, as well as historic budget deficits?

It's time for someone else. We know what President Bush can do. Now let's give someone else a shot. We have not bettered ourselves as a nation under President Bush's leadership (or lack thereof). The necessity of a change is obvious. Four years from now, we can judge John Kerry's presidency, its effects on America, and make a decision as to whether or not we want to grant him another term in office. If his record is as deplorable as President Bush's, I don't expect that Americans will grant him that honor, nor do I expect Americans will grant President Bush the honor to wreak havoc on our great nation for another term as president.

AMEN!!!!!!!!

NICE POST TSALER!!!

I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE!!!

Good post tsaler - although I am not a "Republican", if I felt he was the best choice and doing a good job, I would vote for him. But I don't.

All I have to say now is - when does football season start so we can all start discussing the things that really matter - like the REDSKINS Return to Prominance in the NFL.

Crap - we have that pesky election in November to deal with.

tsaler wrote:Without getting too deep into partisan politics, and I certainly could as politics and government are my passion and calling in life, I will simply say this:

George W. Bush was given four years -- January 20, 2001, to January 20, 2005 -- in order to make his mark on the United States and do the best job he could as president. As I write this, we are currently on July 12, 2004, of that four-year period.

Reasonable people can see that our economy has not improved over that period. Reasonable people can see that the world has not become a safer place over that period. Reasonable people can see that the United States has not made stronger ties and allies on the world diplomatic circuit. Reasonable people can see that the United States has not made more friends amongst states around the world who can be called, at best, skeptical of the message and the principles of the United States and the American people. Reasonable people can see that the federal budget deficit has ballooned to staggering, historic proportions, with no reduction in spending or reliable increase in revenue in sight.

Even if you agree ideologically with President Bush, his advisers, and the Republican Party, it is clear that his impact on the United States so far over his term has been adverse.

While we may speculate as to what Senator Kerry will do if he is elected president, we already know what President Bush has done in the first three and one-half years in that office, and what we have seen from him is not at all encouraging.

At the very least, independent-minded, non-partisan Americans ought to be able to see this election as being a simple choice between an incumbent whose impact on the United States during his presidency has been mostly negative and... someone else. That's really as simple as it can be. Senator Kerry is someone other than President Bush.

We've seen what President Bush does when he is in office. Do Americans want another four years of the same degradation of American power, respect, dignity, and goodwill? Do Americans want another four years of economic stagnation with massive and irresponsible tax cuts for our wealthiest, as well as historic budget deficits?

It's time for someone else. We know what President Bush can do. Now let's give someone else a shot. We have not bettered ourselves as a nation under President Bush's leadership (or lack thereof). The necessity of a change is obvious. Four years from now, we can judge John Kerry's presidency, its effects on America, and make a decision as to whether or not we want to grant him another term in office. If his record is as deplorable as President Bush's, I don't expect that Americans will grant him that honor, nor do I expect Americans will grant President Bush the honor to wreak havoc on our great nation for another term as president.

Here comes tsaler riding on his galloping donkey. Without getting too deep huh? First of all, the economy IS IMPROVING. Job growth has improved, consumer confidence has improved etc. In fact, I just got a new job that pays great. I start next week. I know you'll point out that over the last 4 years, we're in a million job deficit. When a president inherits an economy that was on the downside, in addition to 9-11 (the WORST ATTACK in US HISTORY, where 3000 innocent Americans lost their lives) the economy is going to take an enormous blow for the worst. It takes time to get out of it. Right now were on the right pace.

I sure as hell don't want Kerry and Edwards to take a HUGE chunk of my pie and give it to special interests groups. I'm sick of hearing this top 1% getting all the tax breaks. Everyone gets them. Has it ever occured to you that those wealthy individuals with tax cuts are willing to invest more money in businesses and hire more workers when their not getting taxed to death, thus creating job growth. Since when has paying tons of taxes been a good thing? I guess it's good if your a Socialist. Don't feed me this crap that everyone can't go to college and become financially secure. Everyone can better their financial position if they put the effort in. Everyone can go to college or run a business. I took out student loans to pay for mine. Why would anyone want to strive and go to college to be a doctor, when Kerry and Edwards will take their salary and give it to the undeserving?

I'm sick of hearing about "America's damaged friendships in the world". I personally could give two S*&+s about France and Germany. Their upset because they aren't getting that dirty money that they've been getting from Saddams blackmarket anymore. Kerry and Edwards...yeah, that's who I want. Someone who wants to give France a big slurpie . The French are a bunch of whiny scum buckets. Who cares what they think.

Bush has really damaged our good will...whatever. We overthrew a brutal dictator that DID sponser terrorism. He would give $25,000 to the families of terrorists that blew themselves up to kill Isrealies. He USED WMD's before on the Kurds, gasing them all to death. Yeah, your right. The world would be a much more safer place if Saddam was still in power. You really do sound reasonable .

Go saddle up your donkey and ride off into the sunset with other socialist Moore lovers.

Brandon777 wrote:Here comes tsaler riding on his galloping donkey. Without getting too deep huh? First of all, the economy IS IMPROVING. Job growth has improved, consumer confidence has improved etc. In fact, I just got a new job that pays great. I start next week.

You're lucky. Good for you. If only we could use your personal example as a rule for all Americans. Unfortunately, we can't.

I know you'll point out that over the last 4 years, we're in a million job deficit. When a president inherits an economy that was on the downside, in addition to 9-11 (the WORST ATTACK in US HISTORY, where 3000 innocent Americans lost their lives) the economy is going to take an enormous blow for the worst. It takes time to get out of it. Right now were on the right pace.

So you're blaming the poor economy on the tragedy of September 11, 2001? That's interesting. I've heard a lot of things blamed on September 11, and this is one of the ones that I've been hearing more and more now that Bush's gross mismanagement of the economy is being brought into the spotlight. Sorry, "9/11" is not a free pass. It was a horrific tragedy, but it is not the cause of all problems thereafter.

I sure as hell don't want Kerry and Edwards to take a HUGE chunk of my pie and give it to special interests groups.

So you would rather have Bush and Cheney take a HUGE chunk of "your" pie and give it to special interest groups?

I'm sick of hearing this top 1% getting all the tax breaks. Everyone gets them.

No, not everyone receives the Bush administration tax breaks. The wealthiest Americans receive a disproportionate amount of the Bush tax breaks, especially the repeal of the estate tax, which affects only the top 2% of American estates, yet Bush and the Republicans tricked Americans and the Congress into believing that it was a "death tax" that was designed by the government to rob families when their patriarch or matriarch dies.

Has it ever occured to you that those wealthy individuals with tax cuts are willing to invest more money in businesses and hire more workers when their not getting taxed to death, thus creating job growth.

The concept has occurred to me, but it is simply not true. Americans with more money anyway have less of a reason to invest it and, more importantly, spend it. Middle-class Americans and those who are on the lower end of the scale spend more of their money, which directly infuses more capital into the economy, causing it to grow. You might think a wealthy American expanding his portfolio is creating jobs, but the fact of the matter is that middle-class Americans buying American-made products is what is creating jobs. The Bush administration has not done nearly enough to cut taxes for the lower and middle classes, and has instead given a disproportionate amount of its tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, those whose bank accounts help President Bush set fundraising records when he attempts to buy the Presidency with nearly a quarter of a billion dollars.

Since when has paying tons of taxes been a good thing? I guess it's good if your a Socialist.

Everyone's going to have to pay tons of taxes if someone doesn't come in and change things now. Bush is going to continue to run up astronomical deficits, and they're not going to just disappear. Revenue will have to be increased somehow, and tax surcharges are the easiest and most effective, not to mention surefire, way of doing that. Someone will raise your taxes in the future. It simply depends on when and by how much. You can vote for George W. Bush on November 2nd and delay your tax increases for a few more years and end up having them increased even more, or you can vote for John Kerry on November 2nd and allow knowledgeable and experienced individuals give our budget deficit a shot. Maybe their fiscal responsibility, the kind that George W. Bush and the Republicans can't claim to have any sort of relationship with anymoer, will be able to save you and the rest of us from having massive tax increases in the future. If you don't like paying taxes, get over it. Everyone pays taxes except certain individuals who are at the very top of our economic ladder. They get to dodge taxes while you have to pay. They also donate to George W. Bush.

Don't feed me this crap that everyone can't go to college and become financially secure. Everyone can better their financial position if they put the effort in. Everyone can go to college or run a business. I took out student loans to pay for mine.

So since you did it, everyone can do it? Unfortunately, not everyone can get a loan to go to college. Some people have to stay home and work to help with their family's finances. Others simply do not have the kind of credit necessary to acquire a private loan, nor do their parents or anyone willing to co-sign. If the federal government doesn't assist, they won't be able to get a better education at all. How are we better off as a nation if we sacrifice those who are less fortunate, even though they have much to contribute? Is it worth it to educate our people? I think it is, and so does John Kerry.

Why would anyone want to strive and go to college to be a doctor, when Kerry and Edwards will take their salary and give it to the undeserving?

Simply and completely false. There's not a bit of truth to any of that. There is no socialist redistribution of wealth in the Kerry-Edwards platform, nor has there ever been, nor shall there ever be. Get over it. They're not communists. Besides, who the hell are you to decide who's "undeserving"?

I'm sick of hearing about "America's damaged friendships in the world". I personally could give two S*&+s about France and Germany.

It's a good thing you don't have anything to do with the United States and its diplomatic missions all around the world. Important and reasoned people do care about our relationships with our allies. If you've got more wisdom, intellect, and skill than the State Department, congratulations. I don't believe you do.

Their upset because they aren't getting that dirty money that they've been getting from Saddams blackmarket anymore.

Perhaps.

Kerry and Edwards...yeah, that's who I want. Someone who wants to give France a big slurpie :roll: .

Yet again, a flat-out lie. There's nothing about giving France "a big slurpie" anywhere near John Kerry's platform or that of the Democratic Party. In fact, there's nothing about France period.

The French are a bunch of whiny scum buckets. Who cares what they think.

Oh grow up.

Bush has really damaged our good will...whatever. We overthrew a brutal dictator that DID sponser terrorism. He would give $25,000 to the families of terrorists that blew themselves up to kill Isrealies. He USED WMD's before on the Kurds, gasing them all to death.

Killed all the Kurds? Really now. Might want to get your facts straight. Yes, Saddam Hussein's regime used mustard gas on towns in what is known as Kurdistan during the period around the Iran-Iraq War. If you recall, and you probably don't, the United States supported, funded, and armed Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. Donald Rumsfeld was even sent by President Reagan to meet Saddam Hussein and speak to him about business and the war effort. If you don't believe it, Google it. There's indisputable video evidence.

Yeah, your right.

Yes, I am.

The world would be a much more safer place if Saddam was still in power. You really do sound reasonable :roll: .

I never said that, nor shall I. Creating your own argument to dispute is really something else. Maybe you should stick to what was actually said and not what's a fantasy in your own mind.

Go saddle up your donkey and ride off into the sunset with other socialist Moore lovers.

I don't even have anything to say with that. Like the rest of your post, it's garbage.

don't cha just love politics?

hailskins666 wrote:don't cha just love politics? Monkey

I do!

Brandon, don't take it personally or anything. I enjoy a good debate, and it's nothing against you. Hopefully you feel the same way.

Any thoughts on the Kerry/Edwards 60 min. interview Sunday night??? Man... Al Gore makes John Kerry look like Mr.Rogers...I see why Edwards was picked.

I saw some interview where the two were asked about Bush calling Kerry a "flip-flopper". Edwards jumped in and started yelling about Kerry's accomplishments in Vietnam. It was incredible...

hailskins666 wrote:don't cha just love politics?

speaking of which...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1838856

tsaler wrote:

Brandon777 wrote:Here comes tsaler riding on his galloping donkey. Without getting too deep huh? First of all, the economy IS IMPROVING. Job growth has improved, consumer confidence has improved etc. In fact, I just got a new job that pays great. I start next week.

You're lucky. Good for you. If only we could use your personal example as a rule for all Americans. Unfortunately, we can't.

I know you'll point out that over the last 4 years, we're in a million job deficit. When a president inherits an economy that was on the downside, in addition to 9-11 (the WORST ATTACK in US HISTORY, where 3000 innocent Americans lost their lives) the economy is going to take an enormous blow for the worst. It takes time to get out of it. Right now were on the right pace.

So you're blaming the poor economy on the tragedy of September 11, 2001? That's interesting. I've heard a lot of things blamed on September 11, and this is one of the ones that I've been hearing more and more now that Bush's gross mismanagement of the economy is being brought into the spotlight. Sorry, "9/11" is not a free pass. It was a horrific tragedy, but it is not the cause of all problems thereafter.

I sure as hell don't want Kerry and Edwards to take a HUGE chunk of my pie and give it to special interests groups.

So you would rather have Bush and Cheney take a HUGE chunk of "your" pie and give it to special interest groups?

I'm sick of hearing this top 1% getting all the tax breaks. Everyone gets them.

No, not everyone receives the Bush administration tax breaks. The wealthiest Americans receive a disproportionate amount of the Bush tax breaks, especially the repeal of the estate tax, which affects only the top 2% of American estates, yet Bush and the Republicans tricked Americans and the Congress into believing that it was a "death tax" that was designed by the government to rob families when their patriarch or matriarch dies.

Has it ever occured to you that those wealthy individuals with tax cuts are willing to invest more money in businesses and hire more workers when their not getting taxed to death, thus creating job growth.

The concept has occurred to me, but it is simply not true. Americans with more money anyway have less of a reason to invest it and, more importantly, spend it. Middle-class Americans and those who are on the lower end of the scale spend more of their money, which directly infuses more capital into the economy, causing it to grow. You might think a wealthy American expanding his portfolio is creating jobs, but the fact of the matter is that middle-class Americans buying American-made products is what is creating jobs. The Bush administration has not done nearly enough to cut taxes for the lower and middle classes, and has instead given a disproportionate amount of its tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, those whose bank accounts help President Bush set fundraising records when he attempts to buy the Presidency with nearly a quarter of a billion dollars.

Since when has paying tons of taxes been a good thing? I guess it's good if your a Socialist.

Everyone's going to have to pay tons of taxes if someone doesn't come in and change things now. Bush is going to continue to run up astronomical deficits, and they're not going to just disappear. Revenue will have to be increased somehow, and tax surcharges are the easiest and most effective, not to mention surefire, way of doing that. Someone will raise your taxes in the future. It simply depends on when and by how much. You can vote for George W. Bush on November 2nd and delay your tax increases for a few more years and end up having them increased even more, or you can vote for John Kerry on November 2nd and allow knowledgeable and experienced individuals give our budget deficit a shot. Maybe their fiscal responsibility, the kind that George W. Bush and the Republicans can't claim to have any sort of relationship with anymoer, will be able to save you and the rest of us from having massive tax increases in the future. If you don't like paying taxes, get over it. Everyone pays taxes except certain individuals who are at the very top of our economic ladder. They get to dodge taxes while you have to pay. They also donate to George W. Bush.

Don't feed me this crap that everyone can't go to college and become financially secure. Everyone can better their financial position if they put the effort in. Everyone can go to college or run a business. I took out student loans to pay for mine.

So since you did it, everyone can do it? Unfortunately, not everyone can get a loan to go to college. Some people have to stay home and work to help with their family's finances. Others simply do not have the kind of credit necessary to acquire a private loan, nor do their parents or anyone willing to co-sign. If the federal government doesn't assist, they won't be able to get a better education at all. How are we better off as a nation if we sacrifice those who are less fortunate, even though they have much to contribute? Is it worth it to educate our people? I think it is, and so does John Kerry.

Why would anyone want to strive and go to college to be a doctor, when Kerry and Edwards will take their salary and give it to the undeserving?

Simply and completely false. There's not a bit of truth to any of that. There is no socialist redistribution of wealth in the Kerry-Edwards platform, nor has there ever been, nor shall there ever be. Get over it. They're not communists. Besides, who the hell are you to decide who's "undeserving"?

I'm sick of hearing about "America's damaged friendships in the world". I personally could give two S*&+s about France and Germany.

It's a good thing you don't have anything to do with the United States and its diplomatic missions all around the world. Important and reasoned people do care about our relationships with our allies. If you've got more wisdom, intellect, and skill than the State Department, congratulations. I don't believe you do.

Their upset because they aren't getting that dirty money that they've been getting from Saddams blackmarket anymore.

Perhaps.

Kerry and Edwards...yeah, that's who I want. Someone who wants to give France a big slurpie .

Yet again, a flat-out lie. There's nothing about giving France "a big slurpie" anywhere near John Kerry's platform or that of the Democratic Party. In fact, there's nothing about France period.

The French are a bunch of whiny scum buckets. Who cares what they think.

Oh grow up.

Bush has really damaged our good will...whatever. We overthrew a brutal dictator that DID sponser terrorism. He would give $25,000 to the families of terrorists that blew themselves up to kill Isrealies. He USED WMD's before on the Kurds, gasing them all to death.

Killed all the Kurds? Really now. Might want to get your facts straight. Yes, Saddam Hussein's regime used mustard gas on towns in what is known as Kurdistan during the period around the Iran-Iraq War. If you recall, and you probably don't, the United States supported, funded, and armed Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. Donald Rumsfeld was even sent by President Reagan to meet Saddam Hussein and speak to him about business and the war effort. If you don't believe it, Google it. There's indisputable video evidence.

Yeah, your right.

Yes, I am.

The world would be a much more safer place if Saddam was still in power. You really do sound reasonable .

I never said that, nor shall I. Creating your own argument to dispute is really something else. Maybe you should stick to what was actually said and not what's a fantasy in your own mind.

Go saddle up your donkey and ride off into the sunset with other socialist Moore lovers.

I don't even have anything to say with that. Like the rest of your post, it's garbage.

Everything I stated is a fact. Everything you typed in your post is your typical left-wing liberal argumements. I would first like to state that people like you make me glad I switched to the Republican party four years ago. I look back when I was a Democrat and feel a sense of shame. I think every point you brought up makes me want to puke. I'll just point out a couple of your flawed arguments because if I retorted every point you made, my fingers would fall off from typing.

You say everyone can't get a student loan. That is complete and utter B.S. EVERYONE is qualified for a federal Stafford loan. The only ones that can't get one are convicted felons or illegal aliens. It doesn't matter if your married with kids and have a job, or if your single. It doesn't matter what race or gender you are. Everyone can get student loans. You have to maintain a 2.0 gpa to keep them. Dude, pull your head out your butt and do some research before you start getting on your soap box.

NEWS FLASH!!!!!!!! This just in!! TAXES SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who loves paying higher taxes. If you feel your not getting enough taxes taken out of your check and feel special interest groups are not getting their fair share of your money, donate 20% of your pay to them. When people have more money to spend,they will buy more goods and services; thus, improving the economy. When demand goes up for particular products, manufactoring increases production to meet the demand. This creates more jobs in manufactoring.

You have to be the most blind liberal, other than Skinfan 55 to say 9-11 didn't have any effects on the economy. You saying that totally makes all the points you brought up invalid. The dow took a nose dive when that happend. It dropped to the lower 7,000 range. Now it's up to 10,000.

Well, I don't think I will continue to go back and forth with you. I did that with Skinfan 55. I personally don't care what you think. It's obvious your liberal and I'm conservative. I'm not scared about this election anyways. Bush is going to win. Democrats are extremely desperate to gain their power back. Thats why they argue like you do. Kerry is a lousy canidate for the Democrats. It's true. The only way you guys can elevate Kerry is to take shots at Bush. It's not going to work.

tsaler wrote:

hailskins666 wrote:don't cha just love politics?

I do!

Brandon, don't take it personally or anything. I enjoy a good debate, and it's nothing against you. Hopefully you feel the same way.

That's cool.

Alright. It seems fair enough. You and I are not going to agree, which is clear, and neither of us are going to be able to convince the other that he's incorrect. I respect your opinions, though I think they are misguided, and we'll see how the election turns out on November 2nd.

Hey Brandon its kewl that you and tsaler are agreeing to disagree. I just want to say that regardless of what you might think I was basing my stuff on fact.

The fact still remains that Kerry can beat Bush in a spelling contest. Heck, a fifth grader can beat Bush in a spelling contest. Does that mean that Bush is retarded? I mean....every retard I've ever met I've heard that they have the mind of a fourth grader or they have the mind of a 3rd grader or whatever.

I'm just wondering........

Redskins Rule wrote:Hey Brandon its kewl that you and tsaler are agreeing to disagree. I just want to say that regardless of what you might think I was basing my stuff on fact.

The fact still remains that Kerry can beat Bush in a spelling contest. Heck, a fifth grader can beat Bush in a spelling contest. Does that mean that Bush is retarded? I mean....every retard I've ever met I've heard that they have the mind of a fourth grader or they have the mind of a 3rd grader or whatever.

I'm just wondering........

Why do I have the feeling that you would lose to Bush, the fifth grader and the retard in the spelling contest?

That was pretty clever Spurrier....mixing my words around to throw an insult my way.

My question still remains though. Does it? or Doesn't it?