Ha ha O'Reilly OWNED!
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,228
Likes: 0
From: Miami
Originally Posted by hellothere,Sep 30 2004, 02:49 PM
the deocrats are good with the economy? i assume you haven't got a clue as to your statement....the democrats of today are vey different then 20+ years ago...
the democrats generally vote for more government spending and more social programs which drown the money of the countr'y people
for instance, kerry wants to increase the tax for "rich people"
why is that fair? you dont think that 35% is enough tax for anybody??
bush passes a series of tax reductions during his tenure and couldnt pass what he initially proposed because all the ted kenndy's out there refused to lower taxes further because they knew that their social programs couldnt be funded.
don't think that bush was against social programs....he has steadily increased the programs that have proven to have worked and doesnt just toss money at as many as he can in order to gain votes
the democrats generally vote for more government spending and more social programs which drown the money of the countr'y people
for instance, kerry wants to increase the tax for "rich people"
why is that fair? you dont think that 35% is enough tax for anybody??
bush passes a series of tax reductions during his tenure and couldnt pass what he initially proposed because all the ted kenndy's out there refused to lower taxes further because they knew that their social programs couldnt be funded.
don't think that bush was against social programs....he has steadily increased the programs that have proven to have worked and doesnt just toss money at as many as he can in order to gain votes
that show rocks plus he didn't get owned. Read the whole thread again 7+ pages 
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
From: The Empire State
Do you guys remember when everyone was shouting for Dan Rathers head when he reported on a story that he bleived true?
Of course you do....
Now, do you remember when Fox News reported 2 made up stories. The first was basically what happend to Rather (made up documents) the second was a complete fabrication.
Do you remember those? Were they even in your newspaper?
Seriously though, if you know about Rathers mistake but not the Fox News mistake and complete lie, I want to know. I will help you find out where the stories can be found. And will help you understand why "Bush Bashing" gets days and days of news attention, but "Kerry Bashing" doesn't even make most papers.
Of course you do....
Now, do you remember when Fox News reported 2 made up stories. The first was basically what happend to Rather (made up documents) the second was a complete fabrication.
Do you remember those? Were they even in your newspaper?
Seriously though, if you know about Rathers mistake but not the Fox News mistake and complete lie, I want to know. I will help you find out where the stories can be found. And will help you understand why "Bush Bashing" gets days and days of news attention, but "Kerry Bashing" doesn't even make most papers.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by 04SuzukaS2k,Oct 1 2004, 09:50 PM
Anyone that thinks the downturn of the economy in 2000-2002 was Bush's fault is completely blind. Besides, it was an incredibly short recession.
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 5,094
Likes: 6
From: Vienna, VA
Originally Posted by hellothere,Oct 8 2004, 04:59 AM
As we all know 911 seriously effected the economy of the US. So to put ANY blame on the state of the economy on Bush is IGNORANT.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
i think they dont really care...they are most interested in that their invalid thoughts that bush mislead them into war...even though kerry saw the exact same recommendations from intelligence and he voted for the war while he was CITING those exact same documents everyone else saw...but of course now it was a mistake...what really pisses me off is how he keeps saying the war is a mistake and we have no right to be there but in his speeches he keeps stating his intent to not pull the troops out for at least 4 years...so imagine how those troops will feel if kerry gets elected and they are over their risking their lives and their very own commander-in-chief will keep telling the whole world that we should not be there and its a mistake...what i peice of crap this kerry guy is...
one more thing...so many kerry supporters keep saying Bush lied about the war...he did not say ONE SINGLE LIE. I dare anyone, ANYONE, to tell me one lie that bush said about the war.
nothing was hidden from anybody...the intelligence said that MOST LIKELY iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that they had no intelligence that he got rid of them..so if you were commander in chief and was informed by american intelligence that this bastard leader had weapons to attack us wouldnt you go to war? now everyone is saying he had no weapons of mass destruction. there are two point to this:
1) he may have moved those weapons to syria or iran and since there are no and was never inspections at those countries we have no way of knowing if and when he moved them there...and many of these weapons can be moved very easily in trucks
2) you have to take everythin in the context of time...even if there were no weapons of mass destruction found NOW does in no way imply that american intelligence knew this at that time...they had every suspicion they were there and Bush and the US government did not want to take such a major risk of not doiing anything...bring back memories of CLINTON?? thats right. that dickface did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when those bastards bombed the twin towers during his administration
one more thing...so many kerry supporters keep saying Bush lied about the war...he did not say ONE SINGLE LIE. I dare anyone, ANYONE, to tell me one lie that bush said about the war.
nothing was hidden from anybody...the intelligence said that MOST LIKELY iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that they had no intelligence that he got rid of them..so if you were commander in chief and was informed by american intelligence that this bastard leader had weapons to attack us wouldnt you go to war? now everyone is saying he had no weapons of mass destruction. there are two point to this:
1) he may have moved those weapons to syria or iran and since there are no and was never inspections at those countries we have no way of knowing if and when he moved them there...and many of these weapons can be moved very easily in trucks
2) you have to take everythin in the context of time...even if there were no weapons of mass destruction found NOW does in no way imply that american intelligence knew this at that time...they had every suspicion they were there and Bush and the US government did not want to take such a major risk of not doiing anything...bring back memories of CLINTON?? thats right. that dickface did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when those bastards bombed the twin towers during his administration