Election 2004: Who are you voting for?

[kwyckemynd00]

.....
Here are few ideas: increase capital investment, decrease fiscal spending, lower taxes to stimulate growth(or a flat tax with a VAT), eliminate taxes on lower income individual, cut public works programs, aggressive monetary approach to inflation etc.

I was quite intrigued when I heard that there are a group of Republicans pushing for that exact thing to happen. A flat tax with a VAT. I'm sure there would be some sort of considerations for low income individuals, so I'm not too worried about that.

Regarding my point about him killing millions of people. I thought I made that clear that they aren't dead yet, but they have been given a death sentence because the treatment that could have saved them will arrive 4 years after it will do them any good.

I understand what you said; and I said that your numbers are correct, in theory. My point, which I believe nullifies your argument, is that it's not necessarily a president's duty to tax citizens for research they havn't voted on. Now, if the vote made it on the ballot (it would probably pass based on polling data) and the president still denied the funding, then I would say that he is responsible for their deaths. Until that day comes, he's not responsible, IMHO. That's like that lame freggin' BS argument those insame liberals tried to pull on Reagan saying that he was respondible for millions of dead AIDS victims.

First off, understand that researchers are finding more and more that embryonic stem cells are the only valid stem cells for the treatment of certain diseases.

I believe that; I mean, once out of the embryonic stage aren't the cells all specialized? It makes sense to me that embryonic research is good research. I advocate it. He'll, I'd harvest the little suckers if we could cure 5% of the disease on the planet.

and Diabetes is one such disease. The only other candidate was pancreatic stem cells but a recent study showed that they are worthless for the generating the necessary insulin creating cells. Only embryonic stem cells can do that, but they are struggling to get enough stem cells. Why? Because of Bush there simply aren't enough available. We are on the verge of a medical science breakthrough. A disease plaguing millions and millions of Americans might very well be cured. But without the embryonic stem cells needed, the research can't be done.

You may be right, there are some policies that he needs to loosen up on, but as far as funding goes, I don't believe it's his job until the citizens says so. I personally would like to see it put on a few state ballot's; I'm sure it would spread rapidly.

I'm not going to try to discredit your position on embryonic stem cell research, it's an area that Bush is wrong, plain and simple. He needs to open the doors completely.

However, I do suggest that you dig a little bit deeper into the UN and some of out European allies *cough*, like France and Germany. Also, go see what kinds of headlines their news media run. I just saw one that compared a US Intelligence organization (if I'm not mistaken) to Al-Qaeda...we know that's ridiculous, but they believe it! Look at the way in which they cover the Jews (yes, I fell for the liberal rhetoric re: the jews a couple years back, but then I did my own research and came to different conclusions.), look at how they mention terrists as "rebels", "insurgents", "freedom-fighters", etc and how they label their hanous murders as "executions", etc. Read papers about the Russian school siege and see how many of them referred to the terrorists as terrorists. They were just "Chechen freedom fighters" who "sieged" a school. They didn't talk about the "rape" of children and the "murder" all while screaming "Ala Akhbar". Look at all that and then see how the UN and our allies respond. See what they do or have to say. I suggest you read up on the net a little more so you can read stories and see the pictures of the US soldeirs' graves in France from WWII when we saved their asses riddled with tagging on the gravestones that says "come pick up your trash", etc.

What makes you believe that these countries are more right, etc. than America and that we should bend to their will? Only acting if the UN says it's OK. The UN is impotent, not to mention is occupied by tons of dictators and thugs itself.

The international community is just fucked up, plain and simple. Why do you think that Yasser Arafat won the "Nobel Peace Prize"? That's the biggest fucking joke ever!!

The only major countries in the world who were one our allies and have come out agains us are France and Germany. The only time France was really our ally was post WWII and for a short time during the Revolutionary War. Germany wasn't any more our ally than it was simply our occupied territory. Russia was our arch enemy until nearly the 90's. It's current leader was a KGB agent and the kids who grew up in all of that hate are now running the news media. China has never cared about anyone other than itself.

If you would have listened to the wisdoms of our founding fathers and took their words seriously, you would understand that position that "we don't have allies" and never will. they knew this better than anyone and we're learnign this lesson again. History has demonstrated countless times and without fail that allies aren't allies! There has never been an alliance that has lasted indefinately and there never will be.

Imagine this...lets bring this a little closer to home. Think of the UN as the people in your city. Each delegate represents someone on a different block in the city, each representing their block. Now, would you give those people control over yoru decisions? How you run things inside of your house? How you make decisions outside of your house? Or would you just rather they kept their mouths shut and just helped business prosper and keep crime and poverty down. Now, say a guy has repeatedly beat your dog and you're afraid that if you don't do something, he's going to kill it. Do you think you would abide by their demands no to not kick the guys ass, or would you kick the guys ass and say "**** them! They don't care about me!"?

The UN does not care about the US. They don't want to see the US prosper. Each representative wants their country to replace the US as the world power. Therefore, they will not act in your interest. You're there just in case they need you. As long as they're on the bottom and we're on the top, they'll hate us and they will cooperate in any way to tarnish our reputation. I don't see why people, especially psychologists who know better, can believe that civilization is so much different than it was during it's dawn. Selfishness will always prevail over all else, therefore world opinion of us, being the super power, is completely irrelevant and doesn't mean ****!!

Ok, it's late and I hit like a near infinite amount of tangents I guess it's my bedtime...I can't think straight anymore

 

[CEDeoudes59]

good stuff Kwycke - most 'kids' our age dont know anything (about anything)

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Hey, you are a youngin' too, eh? Cool. Oh, happy (early) b-day

No, it's unfortunate that most kids do not know anything these days...but then again, it makes me feel smarter

Then again, every crackpot who took a poli-sci course in college thinks they're a political genius for listening to their liberal unionized teacher explain how things work...on the left. I get sick of hearing them talk about subjects they're uneducated about...that's the worst, IMHO.

EDIT: Man, I just re-read parts of my post and you would have thought John Kerry was my english teacher if you didn't know any better. I flip-flopped on tense like it was going out of style!

BTW, I just noticed your stats...good squats man! Those are big #'s! Your bench is looking good, too.

 

[Iron Warrior]

I don't know if you guys hear, but Iran has agreed to enrich uranium against permission from the U.N. (I'm sure their scared of the big bad UN ) This is bullshit, me thinks this can spark another war, which I hope won't be humane for the sake of our soldiers.

The someone said we should care what the rest of the world thinks about us, I say **** that (with the exception of those countries who have helped us) I don't care what the world thinks, that's why we call their football soccer.

I'm just sick and tired of the US having to this and that, and letting terrorists walk away from Mosques unscathed cause it's not fair to kill them near Mosques.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

Then again, every crackpot who took a poli-sci course in college thinks they're a political genius for listening to their liberal unionized teacher explain how things work...on the left. I get sick of hearing them talk about subjects they're uneducated about...that's the worst, IMHO.

Thats exactly it.
The most 'educated' people in the world. Professors. Educated in what? Liberal thought/philosophy.
I feel i've been lied to my whole life. Liberalism is the core of textbooks. They disguise it as 'independent' thinking 'free thinking'. It's liberalism with a political agenda.

 

[BigVrunga]

I say nuke them till they glow and shoot them in the mother fuc*ing dark.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

I don't know if you guys hear, but Iran has agreed to enrich uranium against permission from the U.N. (I'm sure their scared of the big bad UN ) This is bullshit, me thinks this can spark another war, which I hope won't be humane for the sake of our soldiers.

Sensitive Humane liberal war costing us lives.
Iran though, no soldiers for that campaign methinks. Iran should be a 24 hour display of the World's Greatest Airforce.

The rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air

 

[Iron Warrior]

Then again, every crackpot who took a poli-sci course in college thinks they're a political genius for listening to their liberal unionized teacher explain how things work...on the left. I get sick of hearing them talk about subjects they're uneducated about...that's the worst, IMHO.

LOL, you're right. In community college we were debating what we should do to Afghanistan. I said we should kill everything that moves in a politically coreect manner. The teacher said it wasn't fair to the innocent civillians who are at the mercy of the Taliban, I'm like, they live under that government so they should pay the consequneces just like our innocent American civillians. He was saying that I was comparing apples and oranges, but I don't think I did, did I ?

 

[CEDeoudes59]

Iron Warrior Don't you have any compassion for terrorists?!?!

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I'm just sick and tired of the US having to this and that, and letting terrorists walk away from Mosques unscathed cause it's not fair to kill them near Mosques.

That really makes my blood boil. Al sader (sp?) should have been dead months ago. Instead he is running from mosque to mosque taking pot shots at our troops. The bottom line is they are asking our troops to needlessly give up their lives so we don't hurt anyone's feelings. This is a no brainer......... drop a frigin bomb on the mosque. If we are going keep fighting this war in a PC mentality we should pull out.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

Bigger bomb on Najaf, get the mosque - get everyone else

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Then again, every crackpot who took a poli-sci course in college thinks they're a political genius for listening to their liberal unionized teacher explain how things work...on the left. I get sick of hearing them talk about subjects they're uneducated about...that's the worst, IMHO.

It's not just in the poli-sci department it's every where on college campuses. I had a journalism teacher that said in front of the whole class that Clinton sent her kids to college. I was going to tell her that maybe she should thank the class because it was their money that sent her kids to college but we had discussions before and I wasn't on her good side. Logic to a liberal is like a cross to a vampire.

 

[Iron Warrior]

Iron Warrior Don't you have any compassion for terrorists?!?!

LOL, I like them dead :twisted:

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I've always watched what I wrote my papers on, but my girlfriend wrote a few papers that showed her obvious rightist ideology, and in two different occassions, she's had her grade knocked for it. She's a smart girl and an A student...but those "open-minded" liberal teachers of her, obviously found her papers condemning illgal immigration offensive; so much, in fact, that after she made a presentation on illegal immigration in her communications class, her teacher decided to start disputing the "facts" (isn't that an oxymoron? can't really dispute facts, but he sure tried..) attempting to convince the class that she was making it up. Her other teacher decided to write her a big long letter on an English paper she wrote.

So, you're definately right that it's not just poli sci classes. My personal observation has been that the English, Art, and Humanities teachers are the absolute worste!!

I love how they've designated themselves the open-minded group, thereby calling us complete idiots. Now, the real kicker is that I've never met a true liberal who has been able to take a step back and say, "well, I can see where you're coming from, but...". That doesn't sound too open minded to me.

Their ideology just doesn'u work. Their diplomacy doesn't work, and unless highly modified, their economics don't work (as long as when we say liberals we're referring to the economically leftist and frankly rather facist left that exists in america today.)

It's not just in the poli-sci department it's every where on college campuses. I had a journalism teacher that said in front of the whole class that Clinton sent her kids to college. I was going to tell her that maybe she should thank the class because it was their money that sent her kids to college but we had discussions before and I wasn't on her good side. Logic to a liberal is like a cross to a vampire.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Sensitive Humane liberal war costing us lives.
Iran though, no soldiers for that campaign methinks. Iran should be a 24 hour display of the World's Greatest Airforce.

The rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air

That's exactly what's gonna happen. If we don't do it soon enough, Israel will, so I'm not too worried. The US is counting on the people to overthrow the existing theocracy. I'm sure they believe it will happen when Iraq begins to stabilize and prosper...probably within a decade.

Iron: You didn't compare apples and oranges...it's just that they think of the Afganies as they do the American blacks, they're too dumb to be responsible for their actions whereas we Americans know of our governments positions and can vote to change things, therefore we're all responsible for the worlds hatred toward us. ::think:

That's the one thing that pisses me off more than anything. These liberals call minorities idiots to their faces and the minorities love 'em for it. Honestly, "we can't require drivers liscenses when voting because that would discourage minority voters." or "requiring licenses when voting is just a racially motivated ploy by the biggoted right!" or "if we change our ballot system with an error margin of 10% with a new computerized one minority voters may mark the wrong candidate or something." Crap like this is saying, well, they're either too illegal to vote or too stupid, so leave them alone you evil, righ white people! gRrrrrr....when will these people wake up?????!!!!!!!!! I don't know how many times I've heard this **** and I still don't understand these so called "civil rights activists" kiss the liberals' ass for slandering their entire race.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

Wow AM is Bush Country

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Wow AM is Bush Country

That reminds me of a theory I've always been interested in investigating about liberals. In short, they're liberals because they grew up whiney little weenies who've relied on authority figures their whole lives, hence large gov't aspirations. Us bber's, it seems, tend to be more conservative because in general we're big, strong, sure of ourselves, and would rather people just mind their own fucking business. We'll tell authority to eat a dick; we can make it in life on our own.

Well, that was a short, very crude version of my theory BTW, I'm not kidding. I bet if you polled those dorky little uber-liberal journalists and got honest answers on how many of them were picked on in HS, you'd see that a great deal of them were. If you followed if further, I'm sure you'd see they always ran to teacher, or principal, or mommy when they had problems. People like that need gov't to whipe their ass. That's not us! We're strong (more than just physically) and self-sufficient!

 

[CEDeoudes59]

you had some good insights there. the liberal anarchists hippie types want no government no authority - without law they would be killed. They bite the hand that feeds them and hate the man who protects them.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

[/QUOTE] I bet if you polled those dorky little uber-liberal journalists and got honest answers on how many of them were picked on in HS, you'd see that a great deal of them were. [/QUOTE]



You bet. Wow. I'm glad someone sees it that way too. Its about a mentallity. We take responsibility for our bodies, for our lives. Liberals do not - they take handouts and demand more.

Liberalism is a substitute for religion.
Think about it.
It is communism and a worship of the state.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

you had some good insights there. the liberal anarchists hippie types want no government no authority - without law they would be killed. They bite the hand that feeds them and hate the man who protects them.

The liberals in America are nowhere near anarchists, in general. I'm more in favor of anarchism than I am what they want for government. They'd disagree, but I'd say they're much closer to facist.

Put it this way, what do they want? Regulation of business, religion, income "redistribution", welfare, universal healthcare (an economic disaster), everyone is classified by race in order to "prioritize" acceptance to schools, jobs, etc. All they want is control. The more government you want and the more government control you want the closer you are to facist. The less you want the closer you are to anarchist. The conservatives in America are much closer to anarchists than are the libs. I.E. Al Franken leans toward facism whereas Rush Limbaugh (no, I'm not mistaken) would be closer to anarchist than facist. We're for less taxes, less regulation, etc, etc.

These libs are not against "governmnt" they're agains our current institutions and pretty much everything our founding fathers stood for, i.e gun ownership, equality (i.e. we're all labeled by race so that minorities get first acceptance...affirmative action is no longer necessary), taxation, etc, etc.

The liberals rely on big momma government to tie their shoes and whipe their ass, etc. Which the gov't loves, b/c that gives them more power.

American LIberalism == big government and less freedom
American Conservatism == small government and more personal freedoms

Now, you can argue the religious who are "economically right" and are slightly on the facist side, but they dont' constitue conservatism. They're socially facist and ecnomically rightist. There's a different. Traditional conservatism is small government (i.e. government intervention is something they're against in almost all cases) whereas the liberalism is all for a big powerful central government. They think they're open minded and making progress, but they're really just taking us back steps. Big central government is not that much difference than a tyranny, a dictatorship, etc. The only difference is that instead of having a king, we in America, would have a president with king-like powers. If you give central gov't enough power, eventually our checks and balances system would fail because if the ruling party of congress had a party member as president they could pass enough laws to completely rewrite the constitution and there would be nothing that state and local government could do.

LOL. There's my rant for the day. I'm not even gonna go back and see if I missed anything, so if you see something I missed or want me to hit on, I'd be obliged

 

[Nullifidian]

Whoa, you've got it totally wrong.

Here's how it works:

Conservatives: smaller government, less taxes, more economic freedom, more privatized services, LESS personal freedom. Remember, conservatives are pro life, anti-drug, pro-christianity, etc.

Liberals: big government, more taxes, less economic freedom, more public services, MORE personal freedom. Liberals are pro-choice, pro-drug, not religious, etc.



You guys aren't conservative for the most part. You want personal freedoms AND economic freedoms. You're Libertarians, not Conservatives.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

The freedom issue is split. Taxing people to death is not freedom. Among other things....
Freedom from Government

 

[CEDeoudes59]

The liberals in America are nowhere near anarchists, in general. I'm more in favor of anarchism than I am what they want for government. They'd disagree, but I'd say they're much closer to facist.

I know its a paradox Liberalism/Socialists and Anarchists. The fear of the authority is similar however

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Whoa, you've got it totally wrong.

Here's how it works:

Conservatives: smaller government, less taxes, more economic freedom, more privatized services, LESS personal freedom. Remember, conservatives are pro life, anti-drug, pro-christianity, etc.

Liberals: big government, more taxes, less economic freedom, more public services, MORE personal freedom. Liberals are pro-choice, pro-drug, not religious, etc.



You guys aren't conservative for the most part. You want personal freedoms AND economic freedoms. You're Libertarians, not Conservatives.

You're kinda right, but I think you're confusing republican for the "conservative" word. I'm not republican, I'm libertarian. I'm also conservative, however.

The religious right doesn't encompass the majority of conservatives. I guess if' you're talking Neo-Con's, they have their personal freedom limits, but they're not more in number than those on the american left. You said 'em all, drugs and abortion. Other than that, they don't limit any freedoms.

You see, here are the social issues that libs are moving forward on (if you want to call it that):
*Partial birth abortion (3rd trimest; WTF?)
*Unodcumented Citizens (can someone say oxymoron)
*Terrorist rights (uh.....)
*Affirmative action (uneccessary and is blatantly discriminatory toward whites, and especially white men)
*Criminal rights (this is OK in some aspects, but when it comes to parent wanting to kick child molestors out of their town the ACLU to butt the **** out!)
*Separation of Church and State (now taken to the extreme removing any symbol that can be associated with christianity out of "sight" of the public, whether or not it's private property, like in the case of a church in San Diego where they have a big cross on a mountainside they own, well the ACLU is having it taken off of their own property!)

If you can think of something they actually protect, please let me know.

They like to say the protect freedom of speech, but I don't know how many times they've tried to shut down Limbaugh. If we were speaking of the liberalism of 100 years ago, I'd be in agreement with you that they are the protector of human/civil rights and the future of civilization, but now they're only moving backward. At least in the sense of (D) = Lib and (R) = Cons. They've switched places over the past century.

All in all, it really doesn't matter, because once either party has the seat of power, all they want is "more power".

The traditional american conservative has taken over the roll of the american liberal 100 years ago (read up grasshopper). Oh, this doesn't include neo-con Republican's! They're for as little government intervention as possible. Religious, moral, and otherwise. The FCC is an entity run by idiots, not conservatives, they're traditionalists. If it was up to a true conservative, he wouldn't care waht you do in yoru room and with who, he wouldn't care what drugs you took, and he would like you to keep your own money, keep your guns, etc. I think of libertarians as true conservatives, in the sense I know conservatism anyway. Conserve our small government, big personal freedom world.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

We are going to take America back. No More Liberal Media Monopoly.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

We are going to take America back. No More Liberal Media Monopoly.

Hell yeah!

Deoudes59: Check this guy out, he's my favorite talk radio guy. He's a libertarian guy, and I think he's probably the most intelligent guy in the media, next to Limbaugh, but he's much more objective and he's definately some "no matter what" republican backer. (Ppl can say what they want about Limbaugh, anything, but he's unintelligent, the guy's a genius.)

You can listen live 10:00PM-1:00AM Pacific Time with this direct link: Invalid Link Removed

His website is here: Invalid Link Removed

 

[CEDeoudes59]

I will certainly listen
Michael Savage has really impressed me lately. Yes, yes, he is a nut and a shockjock type. But he's also very well educated.

Also -- weirdest show - Phil Henry. It's pretty stupid actually. He has guests on who are extremists or weirdos. and callers call in a berate the guests. entertaining not really its fake and staged

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Yeah, I listen to Phil Hendrie, he's a funny ass guy I think the best one I heard him do was a hick guy with a lesbian daughter--well he assumed she was and passed out fliers around the neighborhood (ROFL) so that other people would be more senstive to her (ROFL). He said she was a lesbian because she was actually good at softball.

For the first couple days, I didn't know he did all of the voices and then had pissed callers call in. I used to think the guy just got the nuttiest guests on the planet, so it was probably more funny, but it's still funny now that the secret's out. Overall, I think I've been listening to him for about 1.5 years now. It never gets old

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Oh, this doesn't include neo-con Republican's!

Pat Buchanan just wrote an interesting book called where the right went wrong. I think the premise of it is that the republican party was high jacked by the neo conservative movement. He also differentiates between neo con. and conservatism.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

I'm going to read the book because Pat is right. He is especially right about immigration being our biggest problem (maybe bigger than terrorism?). 16,000 border jumpers a week. 52 weeks in a year. you get the point.

Pat is against the war in Iraq, I believe he is wrong on that one.

 

[Jeff]

Yeah, I listen to Phil Hendrie, he's a funny ass guy I think the best one I heard him do was a hick guy with a lesbian daughter--well he assumed she was and passed out fliers around the neighborhood (ROFL) so that other people would be more senstive to her (ROFL). He said she was a lesbian because she was actually good at softball.

For the first couple days, I didn't know he did all of the voices and then had pissed callers call in. I used to think the guy just got the nuttiest guests on the planet, so it was probably more funny, but it's still funny now that the secret's out. Overall, I think I've been listening to him for about 1.5 years now. It never gets old

Do you guys get neal boortz where you are at? boortz.com. Libertarian talk radio (although the libertarians are mad because he vocaly supports W in regards to the war on terror). I like him because he is pushing for fairtax.org.

 

[Iron Warrior]

You made a great point about the illegal immigration problem we have Deoudes. If 16,000 people can get across each week, what makes you think some of those guys can't be terrorists.

I would have militerized our borders right after 9-11, but that would be too offensive to Mexicans and Canadians according to the left. I'd rather hurt everyone's feelings if it keeps us safe.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

Do you guys get neal boortz where you are at? boortz.com. Libertarian talk radio (although the libertarians are mad because he vocaly supports W in regards to the war on terror). I like him because he is pushing for fairtax.org.

Boortz is good we get him

 

[CEDeoudes59]

You made a great point about the illegal immigration problem we have Deoudes. If 16,000 people can get across each week, what makes you think some of those guys can't be terrorists.

I would have militerized our borders right after 9-11, but that would be too offensive to Mexicans and Canadians according to the left. I'd rather hurt everyone's feelings if it keeps us safe.

1) Troops on the border
2) All known illegal immigrants deported
3) Immigration policy reform

*Neither my party or the democrats are daring to touch this issue. Democrats for votes (illegal immigrants are voting in some states) and Republicans for cheap labor.
Both parties should be ashamed.

Heres a quote:
If you know 2 languages they call you bi-lingual, If you know 3 languages they call you tri-lingual. If you know 1 language they call you an American.

 

[TheUsual]

One of Pat's slogans when he ran for Prez was "Build the Wall" referring to how he wanted to build a wall along the Mexican-American border. Damn I wish he had won Here in Texas whites became a minority as of August of last year, according to the census bureau. Cooincidentally, welfare rates (and taxes) have steadily risen ?

I was a democrat before I moved to Texas and came to grips with reality.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

No, see, a wall would be 'unconstitional' or 'insensitive'

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I'm going to read the book because Pat is right. He is especially right about immigration being our biggest problem (maybe bigger than terrorism?). 16,000 border jumpers a week. 52 weeks in a year. you get the point.

Pat is against the war in Iraq, I believe he is wrong on that one.

If Henry Kissinger says it's a just war, it's a just war That guy is the f*cking man!

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Do you guys get neal boortz where you are at? boortz.com. Libertarian talk radio (although the libertarians are mad because he vocaly supports W in regards to the war on terror). I like him because he is pushing for fairtax.org.

I'll have to check him out, thx!

 

[CEDeoudes59]

Bush discussed the border tonight on the O'reilly Factor - seems like we are just ignoring it - can continuing to ignore it.
My dad thinks we will need a draft if we want the military on the border. In terms of the numbers, I do not know.

 

[Jeff]

Bush discussed the border tonight on the O'reilly Factor - seems like we are just ignoring it - can continuing to ignore it.
My dad thinks we will need a draft if we want the military on the border. In terms of the numbers, I do not know.

Would be nice if they went through with the closing of the bases in allied nato countries and south korea and reastablish them in our own country. I don't think we need that many troups in Germany, I doubt there is going to be a soviet land offensive (although these guys would argue that Invalid Link Removed) in the near future.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

haha, well, Soviet aggression is no good

 

[NPursuit]

What did everyone think of Bush's interview on Fox tonight? I thought he potrayed himself well. It was nice to see him answering spontaneous questions, and actually talking to America, rather than just giving us a speech.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

Im a big critic of Bush and Republicans - they often do not get their point across. Bush was solid on Iraq. He was knowledgable on terror. He just isn't presidential - but that's what we accept. He stood firm on all issues. Never wavering - I just think we gotta do something about the border.

 

[NPursuit]

Im a big critic of Bush and Republicans - they often do not get their point across. Bush was solid on Iraq. He was knowledgable on terror. He just isn't presidential - but that's what we accept. He stood firm on all issues. Never wavering - I just think we gotta do something about the border.

I don't want presidential. I want American. I agreed with his border answers. Let's give the border patrol what they need, and leave the military out of it. I only caught 75% of his answer on that though, but agreed with what he said.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

What did everyone think of Bush's interview on Fox tonight? I thought he potrayed himself well. It was nice to see him answering spontaneous questions, and actually talking to America, rather than just giving us a speech.

I think he did wonderfully. I was pissed about the border, but he is a politician and a very religious guy; between the two of those, I guess we shouldn't ever expect him to turn around people who are "generally" looking for a better life. I don't think we need military, but he didn't address any of the "real" border problems. Oh, and the things he spoke of came as a result of his Homeland Security policy, not his immigration policy. I personally, believe that we've got to take care of immigration at the state level and that Bush should simply pressure the border states to come to some policy conclusions. I believe most things should be the way our founding fathers intended.Federal <--> Local <--> State <--> Federal. Not just Federal --> State --> Local.

It was definately nice to see him talking casually to America. I think he could have be extremely popular if he gave regular TV addresses in such a manner. I was getting worried that Kerry was going to hammer him in the debates--not on substance, he's just a master-debator -- but now I am very optimistic. He is infinitely better as a conversationist than a speech giver.

O'Reilly, on his radio show, made it clear that Kerry outright refused to come ont the Factor. He really attempts to come across balanced (IMHO, he overcompensates more often than not, lol) but you can tell that he was extremely happy with the Pres. and extremely dissatisfied with Kerry (like so many of us are). He says he wont' be undecided after the first debate most likely, I wonder if he'll let out who he's supporting (probably not, eh?):think:

 

[CEDeoudes59]

I don't want presidential. I want American. I agreed with his border answers. Let's give the border patrol what they need, and leave the military out of it. I only caught 75% of his answer on that though, but agreed with what he said.

I'm with you if the border patrol can handle it.

 

[NPursuit]

He really attempts to come across balanced (IMHO, he overcompensates more often than not, lol) but you can tell that he was extremely happy with the Pres. and extremely dissatisfied with Kerry (like so many of us are).

I was also very happy with the way O'Reilly brought forth the questions, and really tried to ask non-party biased questions. Did you guys catch the usual comments/questions section at the end of his show? I was hoping my statement about taking the gloves off in the war got on there, but I didn't catch the end.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

He didn't have your statement It was all about his 60 Minutes interview (which I thought sucked) and about those who hated him and those who like him (like normal).

 

[bandit_193]

I missed the O'Reilly interview last night, will watch part 2 tonight...

I've been very dissapointed with O'Reilly as of late, though, he has caved in to the left after being accused of "pandering to the right"...Now he's losing respect from the right, and the left will never respect him, especially now that he's "sold-out"

Michael Savage is the only true voice of the America right....Helloooo Infidels!

Best thing I heard him say lately was about a dream he had about President Bush addressing the US..."America, Sadr City is 35,000F and a little grey right now, but we no longer will tolerate Americans being beheaded by terrorist..." That really struck a chord with me, but none of these pussy politicians in US have the political will to do what is necessary

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I don't want presidential. I want American. I agreed with his border answers. Let's give the border patrol what they need, and leave the military out of it. I only caught 75% of his answer on that though, but agreed with what he said.

He said that he wants to have a worker program so that the illegal aliens can legally come over the boarder. The question Bill didn't ask is, if there are 3 to 4 million illegal aliens coming over the boarder a year how hard is it for Al Queada to come in via the Mexican boarder?