2.6M new jobs predicted

[benny 0]

I would assume, I may be wrong, that companies also avoid paying a good deal of payroll taxes on h1b visa workers as well, considering that these people would not be getting soc. security or need unemployment insurance.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[billvon 3,001]

>I am glad Bush took us to Iraq.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. However, I don't think he did.

>It beats waiting for Iraq to come to us.

Of all the bogeymen to fear, an Iraqi invasion is one of the safest to discount. Want to worry about someone? Try North Korea, who has IRBM's and nuclear weapons, and who has said they will destroy us - and who is selling these weapons to whoever will buy them.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I am glad Bush took us to Iraq.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. However, I don't think he did.

>It beats waiting for Iraq to come to us.

Of all the bogeymen to fear, an Iraqi invasion is one of the safest to discount. Want to worry about someone? Try North Korea, who has IRBM's and nuclear weapons, and who has said they will destroy us - and who is selling these weapons to whoever will buy them.

Bet they were glad.

http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/18877.htm

[CrazyThomas 0]

Quote

>I am glad Bush took us to Iraq.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. However, I don't think he did.

>It beats waiting for Iraq to come to us.

Of all the bogeymen to fear, an Iraqi invasion is one of the safest to discount. Want to worry about someone? Try North Korea, who has IRBM's and nuclear weapons, and who has said they will destroy us - and who is selling these weapons to whoever will buy them.

Well, some innocents have gotten killed, and more will continue to. And our soldiers continue to pay the ultimate price, but....
there are reasons Saddam needed to be captured and removed from power.

We can argue the Iraq thing all day, but I don't want to. I just wanted to point out to Kallend that Bush accomplished something he said he would.
Bush said Saddam is a threat (false or real, doesn't matter) and took action to counter the threat. The above article shows that Saddam has used chemical weapons already, so why be so gullible to think he wouldn't again.

Thomas

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Just for those claiming that the polls show bush in the lead, may want to take a look at this web site:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

Though it is probably just a lefty, communist piece of shit website

It is very close when asking the question between Bush and Kerry. Bush's approval rating is definitely slipping. Eventhough there is a very vocal group of people apologizing for this man on this site, it would seem many Americans are waking up and starting to ask some questions.

Thankfully though I do not live in a country where one votes for a president just because the other candidate is more fucked up.

[billvon 3,001]

>I just wanted to point out to Kallend that Bush accomplished
>something he said he would.

We invaded Iraq to stop the threat of Hussein's WMD program. It would be nice if you could go back and revise history, just take an eraser and change that to "we invaded Iraq to capture Saddam Hussein" but you can't. That was simply not the primary reason, no matter how much you wish it were.

We invaded Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, not to "free the Afghanis." We invaded Iraq to stop Saddam's WMD threat. So far we're 0 for 2. There were some nice side effects (getting rid of Saddam) and some really nasty side effects (thousands of innocent poeple dead, tens of thousands injured and maimed) but unless you want to rewrite history those are side effects, not the objective.

[PhillyKev 0]

It's interesting that the FOX polls all give Bush a stronger showing than most of the rest.....hmmmm.

[benny 0]

Opinion Dynamics, only they seem to say that opinions never change

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

It's interesting that the FOX polls all give Bush a stronger showing than most of the rest.....hmmmm.

I think anyone who reads anything into polls 8 months before an election is just trying to find a reason to bash.

[CrazyThomas 0]

Quote

>I just wanted to point out to Kallend that Bush accomplished
>something he said he would.

We invaded Iraq to stop the threat of Hussein's WMD program. It would be nice if you could go back and revise history, just take an eraser and change that to "we invaded Iraq to capture Saddam Hussein" but you can't. That was simply not the primary reason, no matter how much you wish it were.

We invaded Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, not to "free the Afghanis." We invaded Iraq to stop Saddam's WMD threat. So far we're 0 for 2. There were some nice side effects (getting rid of Saddam) and some really nasty side effects (thousands of innocent poeple dead, tens of thousands injured and maimed) but unless you want to rewrite history those are side effects, not the objective.

Well, let's see here.

Quote

We invaded Iraq to stop Saddam's WMD threat.

Yep, with Saddam in a cell, I can't imagine he'll be making too many more WMD's, or buying them, or hiding them, or threatening us with them. Sure, his followers may, but Saddam himself NO LONGER poses a threat to us of any kind, especially WMD threat.
I see it as we did remove Hussein's threat of WMD, because there isn't much he can do from his cell.

So, I would say 1 for 2, not 0 for 2. But, I guess it is all how you view it.


Thomas

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I think anyone who reads anything into polls 8 months before an election is just trying to find a reason to bash.

I am going to have to call bullshit on that.

The polls don't indicate who is going to win the election. They can, and in my opinion in this case do, show trends over time. Hence, the previous polls are shown as well to give you that trend.

It clearly shows that Bush's support is slipping and actually at its lowest point since he became president.

I really am not sure what that has to do with bashing?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I think anyone who reads anything into polls 8 months before an election is just trying to find a reason to bash.

I am going to have to call bullshit on that.

The polls don't indicate who is going to win the election. They can, and in my opinion in this case do, show trends over time. Hence, the previous polls are shown as well to give you that trend.

It clearly shows that Bush's support is slipping and actually at its lowest point since he became president.

I really am not sure what that has to do with bashing?

Apparently you have a very short term memory. Remember GHB's popularity ratings after Gulf War 1? Remember less than 6 weeks ago Howard Dean was leading in the polls?

I would add naive to my assesment if you don't think you are just looking for a reason to bash. Either way, you are wrong.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Thankfully though I do not live in a country where one votes for a president just because the other candidate is more fucked up.

I guess by your that you are being ironic and noting you have the same problems we do and have empathy for the situation. Thanks for that,

It's still better than a dictatorship, monarchy, etc....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,001]

>I really am not sure what that has to do with bashing?

If someone posts a poll result when Bush is ahead, it's an interesting news fact. If someone posts a poll when Bush is behind, it's bashing. (Reverse those for any democratic candidate.) You should know that by now.

[juanesky 0]

Quote

I would add naive to my assesment if you don't think you are just looking for a reason to bash. Either way, you are wrong.

And also not even one with the right of vote in the US.....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I really am not sure what that has to do with bashing?

If someone posts a poll result when Bush is ahead, it's an interesting news fact. If someone posts a poll when Bush is behind, it's bashing. (Reverse those for any democratic candidate.) You should know that by now.

No, if someone posts a poll showing any candidate is leading 8 months before an election they are doing it because they have an agenda. Whether or not they are bashing or crowing has more to do with the poster than anything else.

Either way they are being naive if they believe a poll has any significance 8 months out.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Apparently you have a very short term memory. Remember GHB's popularity ratings after Gulf War 1?

And remember the election result?

Popular vote:
Clinton 43.3%
Bush 37.7%
If not for Perot, the margin would have been wider.

Electoral:
Clinton 370
Bush 168

And a little recap:
From the time of the Democratic convention, Governor Clinton obtained a commanding lead in the polls over Bush. Bush's campaign was hobbled by troubled economy. The campaign revolved primarily around economic issues. The end of the cold war, which the Republicans took credit for, perversely worked against them. No longer could they use the issue of "Do you trust the Democrats to stand up to the Russians" against them.

Very similar circumstances...except it will be "Do you trust the democrats to stand up to the terrorists". I'm sure as it becomes more and more obvious even to the die hard Bush supporter that he's really accomplished nothing in this regard, the election will be all about the economy. And since I doubt there's going to be any miraculous recovery, no matter how much Bush predicts one, Kerry will be the next president.

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

Quote

Apparently you have a very short term memory. Remember GHB's popularity ratings after Gulf War 1?

And remember the election result?

Popular vote:
Clinton 43.3%
Bush 37.7%
If not for Perot, the margin would have been wider.

Electoral:
Clinton 370
Bush 168

And a little recap:
From the time of the Democratic convention, Governor Clinton obtained a commanding lead in the polls over Bush. Bush's campaign was hobbled by troubled economy. The campaign revolved primarily around economic issues. The end of the cold war, which the Republicans took credit for, perversely worked against them. No longer could they use the issue of "Do you trust the Democrats to stand up to the Russians" against them.

Very similar circumstances...except it will be "Do you trust the democrats to stand up to the terrorists". I'm sure as it becomes more and more obvious even to the die hard Bush supporter that he's really accomplished nothing in this regard, the election will be all about the economy. And since I doubt there's going to be any miraculous recovery, no matter how much Bush predicts one, Kerry will be the next president.

You you are ok with sex appeal winning elections opposed to actual compitency. Now it makes sense. Now I understand your politics.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,001]

>You you are ok with sex appeal winning elections opposed to actual compitency.

You thought Clinton was sexy? Well, whatever floats your boat . . .

[benny 0]

Quote

You you are ok with sex appeal winning elections opposed to actual compitency. Now it makes sense. Now I understand your politics.

I was fairly certain that's why they suited Georgie boy up in that flight suit...

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

You you are ok with sex appeal winning elections opposed to actual compitency. Now it makes sense. Now I understand your politics.

I was fairly certain that's why they suited Georgie boy up in that flight suit...

You find George was sexy? Well, whatever floats your boat. . .

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 221]

Quote

>You you are ok with sex appeal winning elections opposed to actual compitency.

You thought Clinton was sexy? Well, whatever floats your boat . . .

Oh, that's right, i forgot that you don't consider a womans vote to count, silly me.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[benny 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You you are ok with sex appeal winning elections opposed to actual compitency. Now it makes sense. Now I understand your politics.

I was fairly certain that's why they suited Georgie boy up in that flight suit...

You find George was sexy? Well, whatever floats your boat. . .

I didn't say I found him sexy, I meant they were attempting to portray him as such... I like muff, pie, honeys, what have you. But that's a typical biased Republican response to go and make offhand comments attempting to degrade a thoughtful democrats masculinity or sexual preference. Classic.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[billvon 3,001]

>Oh, that's right, i forgot that you don't consider a womans vote to
>count, silly me.

Sorry, I had no idea you were a woman, with a name like Clint. I shouldn't make assumptions based on people's names.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

You you are ok with sex appeal winning elections opposed to actual compitency. Now it makes sense. Now I understand your politics.

Nope...competency is definitely more important. But sex appeal does win the votes. I don't care how the more competent candidate gets the votes, as long as it's legal. What matters is who ends up in office.