Tyler23:
theresa’s boy was quoted as saying that after he got the news and saw the attacks on tv, he “was in a state of shock and didn’t know what to do for about a half hour”
That’s a joke!
Maybe he would have called France and Germany to ask what the U.S. should do?
I support Bush because of my basic beliefs.
First about Iraq, and the war on terror, I believe Bush has made a lot of progress, and I believe, mostly, in the direction he is headed to deal with the situation.
As far as Kerry on this issue, from what he has said, I believe he will be less effective because of his reliance on wanting approval from the world before taking action. While I cannot say he really would do worse, I do not believe he would do better. Most of the people actually doing the work will still be in the fields doing the work.
Also if you look at the truth about his vote against funding the war, the only reason was to benefit his election. He saw the way Dean was moving in the polls, and changed his vote to coincide with what he saw was the direction of opinion.
To change a vote this important just to benefit him politically leaves me wondering how he would be in dealing with world issues. In that respect, I would have more faith in Bush.
Then there is the matter of economic issues. The idea of raising taxes is foolish because it hurts the economy, and Kerry is proposing it. History shows that the economy benefits from low taxes, and is hurt from high taxes. An improved economy results in more flow of money, which eventually results in an actual increase in revenue.
A lot of people don?t understand this form of investment in the economy, deciding instead to call it voodoo economics, (actually coined by Bush sr.) but the effect, no matter how counterintuitive, actually works. And I agree with having the dual benefit of improved economic conditions along with increased revenue for the government.
Actually I should explain a little further because nobody seems to understand this. If a tax cut results in increased revenue, then that shows the taxes were too high, stifling an economy. There is a point of equilibrium where reducing taxes no longer results in increased revenue. That might just be the point where we should stop dropping taxes.
Another factor is the government budget. I don?t know of anything Bush has actually cut from the budget. I can only hope that is because he was attempting to spend us out of a recession. This makes sense. But now that the economy is moving foreword, there should be strict controls on the budget.
Kerry has promised large increases in the budget beyond anything Bush has proposed and done. I have to live within my budget, and the government should do the same. Anyone who has built up large credit card debts can see this. Kerry mentions the government debt, but it would be impossible to decrease it by blowing up the budget.
The point is why buy a new car when you cannot afford it? We have a massive deficit, and Kerry is proposing spending more. This is illogical to me.
One more thing is the basics of the liberal and conservative thought. My belief is that you do need to help people, but not just give them stuff. This just does not work. Ever see the difference between a kid given a new car, and the one who worked for it? I have had a couple of people just under 20 talk to me about how they wish their parents didn?t give them a new car. They actually got it, but many don?t.
Just look at the difference between a person who won the lottery, and a person who became rich on their own. Winning the lottery seems like the best thing in the world, but many end up with less money then before they won. They suddenly had the money, but their fundamentals did not change. This is also why so many actors and singers go from rags to riches to rags.
I believe this country should be set up to give us opportunity, not stuff. Few people become successful because the government gave them stuff. Most successful people earned it on their own. The biggest mistake is for people to wait around for somebody to give them something. Those are the ones who end up as failures.
Simply put, Bush kicks ass and takes names. He has all our enemies on their toes wondering when they’re next. RLTW
“There’s no such thing as a white flag”
rangertab75
actually they back bush because the saudis have about 850 billion dollars invested in the us and incidently the bin laden family has 1.4 billion invested in america
Rangertab:
“There is no such thing as a white flag”
Well put!
Thank god for warriors like the Rangers and Marines taking the fight to the enemy on their ground.
WHAT STANCE ON TERRORISM he hasnt put in a single policy on terrorism and hasnt made a move since afganistan, all he has done is started a war he cannot finish with Iraq oh and systematically restricted the rights of the electorate (YOU). moreover he is best friends with the bin laden family (they have invested over a billion dollars into the states) oh isnt it ironic that the 17 of 19 terrorists responsible for 9/11 were SAUDI not IRAQI? but hes a strong leader
[quote]J.Boogie wrote:
Something real stupid.[/quote]
Yes they were Saudis. But Saudi Arabia has banned Osama, and Osama hates the ruling power in Saudi Arabia.
Also just because the Bin Laden family invested in the same thing Bush invested in does not mean that he is their best friend. This is propaganda BS. Also are they responsible for the actions of a relative?
They say they have disowned him as a member of their family. I am not sure this is true, but do you have proof of otherwise?
Now can we have a real conversation about the issues, and dump all this conspiracy crap? If anyone has any real proof of this, and not some theory based on 6 degrees of separation, then present it. Otherwise anything you say is suspect.
Ohhh man, boogie. The crips are gonna have you for breakfast, bro. (Hiding my face in my hands) I can’t watch, this ain’t gonna be pretty…