Who will take the White House in '04?

[J.S. Bach]

This isn't a question of who you will vote for; rather, I am asking on who you think will actually make it.

[Barefoot In Kailua]

www.flagw.com/Merchandise_images/minidecal_c.jpg[/img]

Only one choice, Bush!

[itsallaboutme]

I truely fear for this country if GW gets 4 more years to run it in to the ground. I have a gut feeling that he may once again lose the popular vote but still be President.
Nothing more annoying then a guy who gets in office via the Electoral college & not the popular vote who then acts like he won a mandate.

If the President is so Good as the right (BIK) & supporters claim he is why is not way ahead in the polls? Why will he not win in a slam dunk? That is not telling signs of a great President let alone a good one.

I know, in my heart this man is pure evil. He hides behind a bible & all those religious freaks believe everything he says simply because he pretends to be led by God. Boy has he got you guys fooled.

This self-prolaimed "Compassionate Conservative" makes Pol Pot look like a humanitarian.

Please please don't vote for this horrible person.

[chunkymonkey]

Kerry has an excellent chance of winning ... as long as no one cares about his record of the past 30 years. If the only qualification for President is what is promised, then he's a winner.

Would Kerry really be anyone's choice if it wasn't for the hatred toward Bush? When was the last time we have elected a SENATOR for President ... let alone a liberal senator from Massachusetts (JFKennedy was conservative by comparison). Would anyone really want a trial lawyer as a Vice-President? This combo would never be considered in these roles in any other election year.

[sonofbarcelonabob]

ItsAllAboutMe said:

I know, in my heart this man is pure evil. He hides behind a bible & all those religious freaks believe everything he says simply because he pretends to be led by God. Boy has he got you guys fooled.

This self-prolaimed "Compassionate Conservative" makes Pol Pot look like a humanitarian.

Please please don't vote for this horrible person.

Haha. What a friggin' dork.

"I know in my heart this man is pure evil...yadda yadda yadda...whine whine whine..."

That's the thing, you DON'T know the man.

He is the President of the United States, and he is trying to win a second term. He has stated his positions on most major issues and is campaigning on it. End of story.

To call someone you don't know "pure evil" is a disrespect to the man, his wife, his family, and everyone that does know him.

Just because you don't like someone as President doesn't make him "pure evil". Go seek counseling because you need help.

[Deleted]

chunkymonkey said:

Kerry has an excellent chance of winning ... as long as no one cares about his record of the past 30 years. If the only qualification for President is what is promised, then he's a winner.

I really wouldn't be bringing up "records" when comparing the two candidates. W has failed at every job he has had--none of which he did anything to earn, by the way.

4 years in office and he has accomplished what exactly?

As for who will win, this should not even be close. W is only good for rich, white males. All I can figure is that all of the non-rich, white males think they will become rich, white males.

It just boggles my mind why anyone would think W has anything to offer them.

[midwestfan]

(R)uffda! said:

It just boggles my mind why anyone would think W has anything to offer them.

I'll see that boggle and raise you two boggles on why anyone would think K and E have anything to offer them!

[Deleted]

midwestfan said:

I'll see that boggle and raise you two boggles on why anyone would think K and E have anything to offer them!

That's a fair point of view, I guess. I just don't understand why you would think it. Bush offers you NOTHING (unless you are a WRM) except fear and a royal screwing from Big Business. Oh, and possibly Armageddon, I guess--if you're into that sort of thing.

I honestly think J & E can do better than that.

[chunkymonkey]

(R)uffda! said:

Bush offers you NOTHING (unless you are a WRM) except fear and a royal screwing from Big Business. Oh, and possibly Armageddon, I guess--if you're into that sort of thing.
I honestly think J & E can do better than that.

(R) ... do we need to go over this again?

1) Higher taxes = economic slow down; Lower taxes = economic growth. Every Democrate knows that to be true ... if not ... why weren't they promoting raising taxes in 2001 and 2002? Notice that the "raising taxes" strategy is proposed during an economic recovery, not during a recession.

Similarly ... 2) trial lawyers and small business owners are like "oil and water." It is impossible to be Pro-business and Pro-suits. (Even the French have figured this out ... Edwards would never have been able to make his millions under the French legal system.) Encouraging small business leads to jobs. Pleassssse tell me how Kerry/Edwards will encourage small business growth.

3) Do we need to quote, again, the opening dialogue in the 9-11 commission? How many terrorist attacks occurred before 9-11? Why did the severity grow when we did not confront it? Is the world safer today? YES. The basic problem is that half of the population is wanting the war to wrap up like a sit-com. How long did it take to stablize Germany and Japan? Years ... not months.

Some of us remember the Carter years ... we'd like to avoid a relapse.

[Barefoot In Kailua]

(R)uffda! said:

As for who will win, this should not even be close. W is only good for rich, white males. All I can figure is that all of the non-rich, white males think they will become rich, white males.

It just boggles my mind why anyone would think W has anything to offer them.

The inept dems can't find a better candidate to run against Bush than a communist sympathiser like Kerry. It's no wonder why the Republicans have had control of Congress all these years. The dems simply have NOTHING to offer but ineptitude.

[Deleted]

chunkymonkey said:

(R) ... do we need to go over this again?

1) Higher taxes = economic slow down; Lower taxes = economic growth. Every Democrate knows that to be true ... if not ... why weren't they promoting raising taxes in 2001 and 2002? Notice that the "raising taxes" strategy is proposed during an economic recovery, not during a recession.

Similarly ... 2) trial lawyers and small business owners are like "oil and water." It is impossible to be Pro-business and Pro-suits. (Even the French have figured this out ... Edwards would never have been able to make his millions under the French legal system.) Encouraging small business leads to jobs. Pleassssse tell me how Kerry/Edwards will encourage small business growth.

3) Do we need to quote, again, the opening dialogue in the 9-11 commission? How many terrorist attacks occurred before 9-11? Why did the severity grow when we did not confront it? Is the world safer today? YES. The basic problem is that half of the population is wanting the war to wrap up like a sit-com. How long did it take to stablize Germany and Japan? Years ... not months.

Some of us remember the Carter years ... we'd like to avoid a relapse.

So, to summarize, you are not voting for Bush for anything he has accomplished or might accomplish, you are voting for Bush because you are afraid of what Kerry will do?

Fair enough.

I, OTOH, am going to vote for Kerry because of what Bush did--all of it bad--and what he did not do, AND because I believe Kerry and Edwards will actually DO something about the problems facing this country.

(And, BiK, your Joe McCarthy impression is getting a bit old. Can't you come up with some new slander?)

[Barefoot In Kailua]

(R)uffda! said:

(And, BiK, your Joe McCarthy impression is getting a bit old. Can't you come up with some new slander?)

No, I'll keep writing the truth.

[itsallaboutme]

That's the thing, you DON'T know the man

So SBB, since you know this man so well, please tell us about your personal relationship witt GW.
Has he had you over for dinner?

This President has attacked our civil rights & want's to write discrimination into our constitution. That is EVIL, and if being concerned about our rights makes me a "dork" then so be it but at least I'm not a hypocrite.

[J.S. Bach]

I'm not much of a consipracy theorist, but here goes.

We've all heard that the elections may be postponed if there are threats to National security. When I heard this, I was outraged. But, anyhow...Recently there has been talk of new and "credible" security threats. I believe that these new "terror threats" are nothing more than Bush-fabricated and faux; it'll buy Bush time to win over swing States, and thus insuring that he'll be in the White House for another four gawd-awful years.

...and here comes the controversy and endless parade of crap from Bush supporters. Let it be known that I am a democrat, but not a Kerry supporter, per se. However, I will vote for him just to get W out of office.

Hell, we ought to impeach Bush and his entire staff for crimes against humanity!

[Gorf]

chunkymonkey said:

1) Higher taxes = economic slow down; Lower taxes = economic growth. Every Democrate knows that to be true ... if not ... why weren't they promoting raising taxes in 2001 and 2002? Notice that the "raising taxes" strategy is proposed during an economic recovery, not during a recession.

Hmmm..

GWB claims we're in an economic recoverery now, why isn't he putting the issue of raising taxes into his platform?

Similarly ... 2) trial lawyers and small business owners are like "oil and water." It is impossible to be Pro-business and Pro-suits. (Even the French have figured this out ... Edwards would never have been able to make his millions under the French legal system.) Encouraging small business leads to jobs. Pleassssse tell me how Kerry/Edwards will encourage small business growth.

GWB certainly hasn't promoted small business growth during his 4 years in offive.

His efforts have been predominantly toward large business.

3) Do we need to quote, again, the opening dialogue in the 9-11 commission? How many terrorist attacks occurred before 9-11? Why did the severity grow when we did not confront it? Is the world safer today? YES. The basic problem is that half of the population is wanting the war to wrap up like a sit-com. How long did it take to stablize Germany and Japan? Years ... not months.

The severity and number of terrorists attacks are at all time highs around thw world.

We've heard how many CIA reports of planned Al Qaida attacks on the US this year alone?

With all of the CIA breakdowns in finding, reporting, and communicating terrorist information leading up to 9/11, during the Iraq invasion and occuplation can you really be all that comfortable now that one of the Al Qaida nuymerous plans for future attacks won't succeed?

GWB was originally against the Department of Homeland Security being formed, then he signs off on and endorses creating it.

GWB has totally ignored Osama, whom he said was his top piority shortly after 9/11. Then he goes off on a witch hunt in Iraq to remove Saddam. Only to replace Saddam at least temporarily with another CIA backed terrorist in Allawi.