George W. Defeats John Kerry

I don't know what kind of game the Democrats think they're playing, jumping on the bandwagon and voting to make John Kerry the front-runner.

The wooden, pandering and traditionally bland persona of Senator John Kerry is not enough to motivate people to support someone who is so centrist as to be virtually indistinguishable from a Republican.

The reason why Howard Dean garnered so much support was because of his ability to use straight talk, not pandering, and to get the Democratic troops mobilized by encouraging them to be vocal and stand up for contentious problems such as the need for universal health care and to oppose Bush's wreckless abuse of power. That is the reason the "Take Your Country Back" ads were so effective.

It made people believe they had a voice, or that their opinion mattered, not simply allowing some blow-dried pontificator go to Washington and deal. We've seen John Kerry and thats exactly what he does. I can remember his posturings way back during the Iran-Contra hearings.

John Kerry does not have the charisma to unite the Democrats during a debate let alone a Convention, and George W.'s record on strong defense is enough to stifle the folksiest littany or protracted diatribe that Kerry attempts to muster for a ready-made TV audience.

For the good of the country during this crucial point in history, I ask you Senator John Kerry to step down from the Presidential contest and allow the country a chance at a better future.

George Bush will loose by a land slide. Kerry is gaining in popularity because he stands more centrail then Dean.

As we get closer to that dreadful day to vote, people will see through the bull-sh-it and vote bush out on the street.

Mark my words!!!

I think Kerry has been in Washington way too long. The US needs an outsider, like Dean. And I concur with the fact that Bush will lose big.

Originally posted by Hawkeye
I think Kerry has been in Washington way too long. The US needs an outsider, like Dean. And I concur with the fact that Bush will lose big.

dean wont win. hes to liberal. and w cant be beat. he won the election when we got saddam

I agree. The Saddam captured upped his percentage by a landslide. It went up about 20% those days we got Saddam..this is what makes you think about a "planned" terrorist attack to get the morale up about him...I think Bush will take the whitehouse in 2004, no doubt in my mind.

-wD

Unfortuneatly Von Bush will probably win. This is a sad and awful thing. Bush has screwed up royally with his private war, and now that the truth about the wmds is out, they are relying on the same old rhetoric to keep the masses in line.

Bush will have information of, or be directly envolved in some terrible catastrophie later this year, this along with the announcement of Osama Bin Laudens capture that the military has said will happen( funny how its timed for a election year) this year. These two items will give reasoning for his winning, even if as in 2000 it is rigged.

This man will win at all costs, it is crystal clear when one steps back from the BS that is fed to the masses on a daily basis.

The only winner in 2004 is BUsh, and the ultimate loser is the American people and the decay of our government.

kerry will win the democratic nomination, but he will be ripped to shreads about his past, so bush will not even have a fight. sigh...i was hoping for a bonesman -vs- bonesman race

Bush will lose by a landslide? I am marking your words

He's still pulling in a 60% approval rating. Even if he loses, it won't be by a landslide. For better or worse, Americans like there president and he'll be probably win the re-election, which is after all a referendum on the incumbent.

Kerry is a bore, He�s �Lieberman-lite� (I crack myself up) Dean is a negative hothead. Most Americans see Bush as optimistic and charming.

Yes Bush is so charming, he makes me feel all warm inside.

NO actually he doesn't, I feel COLD and I don't watch him make his speeches, I only read them so I won't feel as INFECTED.

Look, part of the American people like him, part does not. THE ONLY REASON he could hold a second term is because of the events that unfolded after 9/11. Otherwise, if 9/11 did not occur, people would look to other things which they may not approve of, such as FREAK OUT TAX CUTS

actually according to the polls 60% like him...ya trust your media.

I just talked to a hardcore Republican friend of mine and he said he's not going to vote for Bush. Shocked the crap out of me! But he says he's for Clark now.

The reason he gives is that Bush is moving away from the Republican value of being fiscally conservative. He's spending like a drunken sailor and digging us into a hole. He's wasting money on these faith-based things and the marrige initiative and he keeps asking for more and more money. Now he wants to spend money on a missle defense system....it's maddness!

What happened to the small government, fiscally conservative Republicans?

If even my friend who liked Bush "because he keeps America on top and bombs Muslims" has turned away, I don't see how anyone could vote for Bush and still have self respect.

I want Clark because he's good-looking but I try and put that aside and look at his programs, which look rather good. But he's no peace activist.

Anyway, in addition to conservatives turning the vote, MANY people got a lot more than they asked for last election. By that I mean not many people sensed or listened to what Bushboy was going to do, esp. after 9/11...so they too will be voting for 'the other guy'.

Universal healthcare -= death and NO R&D, NO healthcare at all... You REALLY think ANYONE is going to go through the HELL that is med school and internship so they can make NO MONEY?! What kind of doctors are we going to end up with? WHAT company is going to spend a billion dollars finding a cure for cancer KNOWING they can't ever make it back?!

FREAKOUT Taxcuts?! What the hell is that?! Do you realize that < 3% of the population pays 45% of the income tax?! Is that fair to you?

It is SO easy for these Democrats to say they are going to roll back the tax cuts on the "rich" because these "rich" comprise less than 3% of the voting population and therefor have no power.

Here's the ballbuster, if you make $200,000.00 a year or more you are "rich" WHAT a JOKE! $200,000.00 a year is NOT rich. But it DOES put you in that less than 3% who IS paying MORE THAN 45% of ALL income tax!

Think about that for a while...

PEACE...
m...



[Edited on 1-31-2004 by Springer]

First off, I don't trust polls...but The polls put Kerry beating Bush at like a 4 point margain. Pretty close. But I stand firm behind Clark. As soon as we have one canidate, democrats and other sane people will allign behind whoever that canidate is.

Uh Springer, what does all that have to do with Bush spending our money like a drunken sailor (McCain's quote not mine) on these idiotic programs?

Dems aren't in control, they haven't been for a long time.

Originally posted by Springer

FREAKOUT Taxcuts?! What the hell is that?! Do you realize that < 3% of the population pays 45% of the income tax?! Is that fair to you?

It is SO easy for these Democrats to say they are going to roll back the tax cuts on the "rich" because these "rich" comprise less than 3% of the voting population and therefor have no power.

Here's the ballbuster, if you make $200,000.00 a year or more you are "rich" WHAT a JOKE! $200,000.00 a year is NOT rich. But it DOES put you in that less than 3% who IS paying MORE THAN 45% of ALL income tax!

Think about that for a while...

PEACE...
m...



[Edited on 1-31-2004 by Springer]

Is it fair to me?? If that's how the numbers really are, I won't doubt you, but yes that almost does make sense!! I tell you if you have more money than you can spend, it shouldn't be a problem!! Taxing should be proportional, and it almost is!! But let us not cut too much off and end up FREAKIN OUT like I am now!

Flinx, I was commenting on two of the posts in this thread... One that called for Universal healthcare and the other that made an unclear statement about the tax cuts.

Shrub's unruly spending has NOTHING to do with what I was writing about or commenting about. I IN NO WAY endorsed Shrub's spending in my post. Frankly he is getting more liberal everday near as I can tell.

I will say that in comparison to the 7 dwarves the Dems have put up for opposition, Shrub is a SHOE IN for reelection.

PEACE...
m...

Originally posted by Springer
Flinx, I was commenting on two of the posts in this thread... One that called for Universal healthcare and the other that made an unclear statement about the tax cuts.

Shrub's unruly spending has NOTHING to do with what I was writing about or commenting about. I IN NO WAY endorsed Shrub's spending in my post. Frankly he is getting more liberal everday near as I can tell.

I will say that in comparison to the 7 dwarves the Dems have put up for opposition, Shrub is a SHOE IN for reelection.

PEACE...
m...

Whoops...sorry. I saw your post was about money and I assumed..... My bad!

Originally posted by Requiem
Yes Bush is so charming, he makes me feel all warm inside.

NO actually he doesn't, I feel COLD and I don't watch him make his speeches, I only read them so I won't feel as INFECTED.

Look, part of the American people like him, part does not. THE ONLY REASON he could hold a second term is because of the events that unfolded after 9/11. Otherwise, if 9/11 did not occur, people would look to other things which they may not approve of, such as FREAK OUT TAX CUTS

Say what? Before the events of 9/11, Bush was doing very well, politically speaking. He was proving that he is not stupid by out-maneuvering the democrats at every turn. Were it not for the attacks, his economic ideas would have already had the nation out of the recession that was allowed under the Clinton watch, and he would still be running circles around the Dems. The Dems are sneaky and spiteful and wrote the book on the mudslinging lies, but they aren't as shrewd as the Shrub.

As far as the tax cut, yeah, I can see why people wouldn't like it. It puts more cash in the hands of those who earned it, puts more cash in the hands of those who can invest it, causes the economy to grow, and is the right thing to do. I can see why some people wouldn't like that. Well, actually, I can't, I was just trying to be agreeable.

Originally posted by Requiem

Originally posted by Springer

FREAKOUT Taxcuts?! What the hell is that?! Do you realize that < 3% of the population pays 45% of the income tax?! Is that fair to you?

It is SO easy for these Democrats to say they are going to roll back the tax cuts on the "rich" because these "rich" comprise less than 3% of the voting population and therefor have no power.

Here's the ballbuster, if you make $200,000.00 a year or more you are "rich" WHAT a JOKE! $200,000.00 a year is NOT rich. But it DOES put you in that less than 3% who IS paying MORE THAN 45% of ALL income tax!

Think about that for a while...

PEACE...
m...



[Edited on 1-31-2004 by Springer]

Is it fair to me?? If that's how the numbers really are, I won't doubt you, but yes that almost does make sense!! I tell you if you have more money than you can spend, it shouldn't be a problem!! Taxing should be proportional, and it almost is!! But let us not cut too much off and end up FREAKIN OUT like I am now!

Huh? If you have more money than you can spend, it shouldn't be a problem? Who in the Hell are you to tell people what they have to do with their money? In case you haven't noticed, this election is over the American president, not the Soviet leader!
What do you mean taxes should be proportional? Are you meaning progressive? In other words, the harder or smarter you work and save, the more the government steals from you? It is pathetic that any American would feel the need to steal like that.