If the voting was today...

[snuffbox 0]

I'd pick Kerry, but I think I accidentally voted Bush instead. Note to self: do not make such stupid mistakes in a real erection.

Wow.

[Guest MikeSC]

"Tax breaks to people that don't pay taxes" is the biggest bullshit talking point I've ever heard.

 

They pay plenty of taxes. Simply not income taxes.

And the wealthy pay MORE taxes.

INCLUDING income taxes.

 

They pay their share.

 

Heck, they pay more than their share.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

2) This is bad not only because it's underfunded, but because it punishes poor schools by taking away funding, leaving them unable to improve.

Education spending, as a previous post I put up mentions, has gone up A LOT.

If you dont understand what life is like for the working class; or understand the tax concepts of rich vs. poor than Im afraid you might never know until you step outside your home/RNC convention. 

You know what's ironic?

 

The people who have to work HARD for their millions tend to vote Republican.

 

People who DON'T work hard for their millions (see Holywood) tend to vote Democrat.

 

Wonder why.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

I'd pick Kerry, but I think I accidentally voted Bush instead. Note to self: do not make such stupid mistakes in a real erection.

when you have a real erection.. put it in the right hole

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

"Tax breaks to people that don't pay taxes" is the biggest bullshit talking point I've ever heard.

 

They pay plenty of taxes. Simply not income taxes.

And the wealthy pay MORE taxes.

INCLUDING income taxes.

 

They pay their share.

 

Heck, they pay more than their share.

-=Mike

So do lower income folks. Most of their paycheck gets gouged by payroll taxes.

[Guest MikeSC]

"Tax breaks to people that don't pay taxes" is the biggest bullshit talking point I've ever heard.

 

They pay plenty of taxes. Simply not income taxes.

And the wealthy pay MORE taxes.

INCLUDING income taxes.

 

They pay their share.

 

Heck, they pay more than their share.

-=Mike

So do lower income folks. Most of their paycheck gets gouged by payroll taxes.

And they get it back.

 

And let's not even get into the unfairness in the gov't getting an annual, interest-free loan from people it overtaxes.

-=Mike

[Guest thebigjig]

No, they're really not much fun

 

Jeepers Creepers, someone is sure getting grouchy in his old age.

 

Also, another very valid point is that after such a close election George Bush should have remained a more moderate president, not the near ultraconservative run that hes had.

 

So I guess...

 

1) Medicare prescription bill

2) Bloated education bill supported by Ted Kennedy

3) Immigration amnesty bill

4) Big increase for the NEA

5) No vetoes at all

 

Makes you a near ultra-conservative?

 

I shudder to think what makes someone a liberal.

 

Then again, we do have HITLER at the helm.

 

Oh, and the final vote tally, according to this biased site, reads as follows:

 

(Gore) - (Bush) = (differential)

 

(50,996,582) - (50,456,062) = (540,520)

 

Not quite the 58,158,094 - 49,820,518 = 8,337,576 that was previously claimed earlier in this thread. (BTW: Where did those figures come from -- W. didn't turn away THAT many Palm Beach voters to warrant so many extra Gore votes)

 

I think the facts speak for themselves in this case...

First off, the medicare bill supports the drug companies more than the actual senior citizens that the bill was set up to help... even 20 or so republicans jumped ship on this one

 

An education bill that EVERYONE supported, not just Ted Kennedy... the first bill that actually showed nonpartisan progress during the early days of the Bush administration... something Bush does not fund, nor really cares about... NO ONE will admit that no child left behind is a success other than Dubyah himself, who two months ago was goin around the country touting its success, leaving the teachers scratching their heads thinking "what success?"

 

Well, it's not amnesty... It's also in theory a good idea on many levels, and a really really bad idea on alot more levels. It wont pass... too much republican opposition. However, I would say that this on the surface seems non partisan, but this is simply Karl Rove's brilliant (and I'm not being sarcastic) attempt to get a good portion of the latin vote

 

If you call cutting the NEA's budget a big increase, than so be it... this president has the worst environmental track record of any president in my life time, so surely you can come up with some better talking points than that

 

No vetoes at all?? Is this guy serious?? Of course there have been no vetoes... leading majority in both houses pal... the guys gets whatever he wants. This isn't rocket science... if you honestly believe that he hasn't vetoed anything because he's fucking BIPARTISAN then you are too far gone, and someone I refuse to argue with on account of ignorance

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Actually, they only get state and federal taxes back... which isn't even close to the amount of Medicare, Social Security, or any other taxes taken out of their paychecks. But whatever, fuck the poor. Fuck them up their poor asses.

[Guest thebigjig]

Ya know... I was arguing with my friend the other day about Bush's economic ideology, and how it's essentially making the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and he responded with this "well thats a good thing... if the rich get richer, then they are in a better position to HELP the poor!" as if thats on the mind of the majority of the extremely wealthy... if this is the typical republican line of thinking right now, then I have no hope or faith in this party at all

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, they only get state and federal taxes back... which isn't even close to the amount of Medicare, Social Security, or any other taxes taken out of their paychecks. But whatever, fuck the poor. Fuck them up their poor asses.

Yup, that's EXACTLY what is being said. Precisely. Sure. On the nose. Dead-on-balls accurate.

 

Whew, I was worried you'd go to the usual liberal "You just hate the poor" crap to end discussion.

 

Oh wait, you did.

 

Darn.

First off, the medicare bill supports the drug companies more than the actual senior citizens that the bill was set up to help... even 20 or so republicans jumped ship on this one

Care to explain how?

An education bill that EVERYONE supported, not just Ted Kennedy... the first bill that actually showed nonpartisan progress during the early days of the Bush administration... something Bush does not fund, nor really cares about... NO ONE will admit that no child left behind is a success other than Dubyah himself, who two months ago was goin around the country touting its success, leaving the teachers scratching their heads thinking "what success?"

Yet education spending has skyrocketed. Where is the money going? The gov't won't claim that they're spending a ton on education (placing it in the budget to boot) and not do it. It's not politically useful.

Well, it's not amnesty... It's also in theory a good idea on many levels, and a really really bad idea on alot more levels. It wont pass... too much republican opposition. However, I would say that this on the surface seems non partisan, but this is simply Karl Rove's brilliant (and I'm not being sarcastic) attempt to get a good portion of the latin vote

It's bad --- and definitely not a conservative measure.

If you call cutting the NEA's budget a big increase, than so be it... this president has the worst environmental track record of any president in my life time, so surely you can come up with some better talking points than that

He increased NEA funding a ton in his recent budget. Try and follow the news a little, please.

No vetoes at all?? Is this guy serious?? Of course there have been no vetoes... leading majority in both houses pal... the guys gets whatever he wants. This isn't rocket science... if you honestly believe that he hasn't vetoed anything because he's fucking BIPARTISAN then you are too far gone, and someone I refuse to argue with on account of ignorance

He hasn't vetoed any bills --- nor attacked a single Democrat --- because he doesn't want to cause problems.

 

Funny, I'll still argue with you, even though you're painfully ignorant.

 

I'm more tolerant! GO ME!

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Ya know... I was arguing with my friend the other day about Bush's economic ideology, and how it's essentially making the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and he responded with this "well thats a good thing... if the rich get richer, then they are in a better position to HELP the poor!" as if thats on the mind of the majority of the extremely wealthy... if this is the typical republican line of thinking right now, then I have no hope or faith in this party at all

And you're making an illogical point.

 

Bush is all for "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" --- yet you don't explain how that's possible.

 

I could mention that that was actually a running theme of the 1990's --- but I won't.

-=Mike

[Guest thebigjig]

quick question: You're calling me ignorant when you're the one that refuses to read a book based on the read-book lists of Amazon.com buyers??

[Guest MikeSC]

quick question: You're calling me ignorant when you're the one that refuses to read a book based on the read-book lists of Amazon.com buyers??

Yup. I'm also not reading it because "Bush's Brain" doesn't really indicate any sort of real insight into an issue whatsoever.

 

But, hey, if using common sense is a crime, I am guilty.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

Actually, they only get state and federal taxes back... which isn't even close to the amount of Medicare, Social Security, or any other taxes taken out of their paychecks. But whatever, fuck the poor. Fuck them up their poor asses.

Funny thing is, these are all big cornerstones of the Democratic party.

[snuffbox 0]

"Tax breaks to people that don't pay taxes" is the biggest bullshit talking point I've ever heard.

 

They pay plenty of taxes. Simply not income taxes.

And the wealthy pay MORE taxes.

INCLUDING income taxes.

 

They pay their share.

 

Heck, they pay more than their share.

-=Mike

So do lower income folks. Most of their paycheck gets gouged by payroll taxes.

And they get it back.

 

And let's not even get into the unfairness in the gov't getting an annual, interest-free loan from people it overtaxes.

-=Mike

Working class people need that money right then, at paycheck time. These are people who depend on their long hours and labor to get them and their families through until the next check. The ammount taken out of a paycheck could pay for a trip to the grocery store...do you understand how important that can be for a working class family. The tax return once a year doesnt help them much during crunch time, all year round.

[Guest MikeSC]

Working class people need that money right then, at paycheck time. These are people who depend on their long hours and labor to get them and their families through until the next check. The ammount taken out of a paycheck could pay for a trip to the grocery store...do you understand how important that can be for a working class family. The tax return once a year doesnt help them much during crunch time, all year round.

That's right --- the rich don't put in long hours and take no risks whatsoever.

 

Unless you've been born into huge money or married into it (such as "friend of the working man" Kennedy and Kerry), you work long and hard for the money you make.

 

Most of the money taken out of their check is for things like Social Security and the like.

-=Mike

[sfaJack 0]

Working class people need that money right then, at paycheck time. These are people who depend on their long hours and labor to get them and their families through until the next check. The ammount taken out of a paycheck could pay for a trip to the grocery store...do you understand how important that can be for a working class family. The tax return once a year doesnt help them much during crunch time, all year round.

First off, don't speak about the plight of the working class family as if none of us have ever experienced that lifestyle or anything. I seriously doubt that many people on this board were born with silver spoons in their mouths and have been able to go their entire lives without ever feeling a financial pinch.

 

Anyway, what is your solution to this problem? You want to stop taking ANY taxes out of people's paychecks? How do you fund Social Security, then? Medicare? Drop funding for those programs and you'd REALLY be fucking the poor/older people. What about those precious unemployment taxes? You want to stop those? What will happen when someone is laid off and then has nothing to fall back on because there is no unemployment money to be had?

 

Do you propose some asinine plan of taking taxes only from those that you deem to be "wealthy" and thus able to afford it? What is your alternative? Why should the people most likely to take advantage of the services those payroll taxes pay for NOT actually pay anything into the fund? Where's the fairness in that?

 

As for income taxes, the amount someone has taken out of each of their "precious" paychecks is easily controlled. Changing the number of exemptions on a W-4 form will take care of that, so that they can take home more money each month, while still paying their fair share of income taxes.

 

Also, it's been my own personal experience that most families in "dire" financial straits have their financial priorities out of whack. Cutting out cable TV or not buying so many stupid DVD's or not paying $110 for some goddamn LeBron James tennis shoes their kids endlessly begged to have, as just a few simple examples, can go a long way to paying for a "trip to the grocery store."

[snuffbox 0]

Working class people need that money right then, at paycheck time. These are people who depend on their long hours and labor to get them and their families through until the next check. The ammount taken out of a paycheck could pay for a trip to the grocery store...do you understand how important that can be for a working class family. The tax return once a year doesnt help them much during crunch time, all year round.

First off, don't speak about the plight of the working class family as if none of us have ever experienced that lifestyle or anything. I seriously doubt that many people on this board were born with silver spoons in their mouths and have been able to go their entire lives without ever feeling a financial pinch.

 

Anyway, what is your solution to this problem? You want to stop taking ANY taxes out of people's paychecks? How do you fund Social Security, then? Medicare? Drop funding for those programs and you'd REALLY be fucking the poor/older people. What about those precious unemployment taxes? You want to stop those? What will happen when someone is laid off and then has nothing to fall back on because there is no unemployment money to be had?

 

Do you propose some asinine plan of taking taxes only from those that you deem to be "wealthy" and thus able to afford it? What is your alternative? Why should the people most likely to take advantage of the services those payroll taxes pay for NOT actually pay anything into the fund? Where's the fairness in that?

 

As for income taxes, the amount someone has taken out of each of their "precious" paychecks is easily controlled. Changing the number of exemptions on a W-4 form will take care of that, so that they can take home more money each month, while still paying their fair share of income taxes.

 

Also, it's been my own personal experience that most families in "dire" financial straits have their financial priorities out of whack. Cutting out cable TV or not buying so many stupid DVD's or not paying $110 for some goddamn LeBron James tennis shoes their kids endlessly begged to have, as just a few simple examples, can go a long way to paying for a "trip to the grocery store."

Wow...yep, you really understand the situation duder.

[Justice 0]

Working class people need that money right then, at paycheck time. These are people who depend on their long hours and labor to get them and their families through until the next check. The ammount taken out of a paycheck could pay for a trip to the grocery store...do you understand how important that can be for a working class family. The tax return once a year doesnt help them much during crunch time, all year round.

First off, don't speak about the plight of the working class family as if none of us have ever experienced that lifestyle or anything. I seriously doubt that many people on this board were born with silver spoons in their mouths and have been able to go their entire lives without ever feeling a financial pinch.

 

Anyway, what is your solution to this problem? You want to stop taking ANY taxes out of people's paychecks? How do you fund Social Security, then? Medicare? Drop funding for those programs and you'd REALLY be fucking the poor/older people. What about those precious unemployment taxes? You want to stop those? What will happen when someone is laid off and then has nothing to fall back on because there is no unemployment money to be had?

 

Do you propose some asinine plan of taking taxes only from those that you deem to be "wealthy" and thus able to afford it? What is your alternative? Why should the people most likely to take advantage of the services those payroll taxes pay for NOT actually pay anything into the fund? Where's the fairness in that?

 

As for income taxes, the amount someone has taken out of each of their "precious" paychecks is easily controlled. Changing the number of exemptions on a W-4 form will take care of that, so that they can take home more money each month, while still paying their fair share of income taxes.

 

Also, it's been my own personal experience that most families in "dire" financial straits have their financial priorities out of whack. Cutting out cable TV or not buying so many stupid DVD's or not paying $110 for some goddamn LeBron James tennis shoes their kids endlessly begged to have, as just a few simple examples, can go a long way to paying for a "trip to the grocery store."

Wow...yep, you really understand the situation duder.

More like your just being an arrogent ass who can't refute the argument so you'll just leave a pithy quote and a smiley at the end so you can try and think that you've somehow salvaged a victory here.

[Guest BDC]

So as I understand it, we have this standard of punishing rich people for either being born rich or earning lots of money through work and then rewarding people on the other end of the spectrum. So we're basically levelling out the field, right?

[snuffbox 0]

Working class people need that money right then, at paycheck time. These are people who depend on their long hours and labor to get them and their families through until the next check. The ammount taken out of a paycheck could pay for a trip to the grocery store...do you understand how important that can be for a working class family. The tax return once a year doesnt help them much during crunch time, all year round.

First off, don't speak about the plight of the working class family as if none of us have ever experienced that lifestyle or anything. I seriously doubt that many people on this board were born with silver spoons in their mouths and have been able to go their entire lives without ever feeling a financial pinch.

 

Anyway, what is your solution to this problem? You want to stop taking ANY taxes out of people's paychecks? How do you fund Social Security, then? Medicare? Drop funding for those programs and you'd REALLY be fucking the poor/older people. What about those precious unemployment taxes? You want to stop those? What will happen when someone is laid off and then has nothing to fall back on because there is no unemployment money to be had?

 

Do you propose some asinine plan of taking taxes only from those that you deem to be "wealthy" and thus able to afford it? What is your alternative? Why should the people most likely to take advantage of the services those payroll taxes pay for NOT actually pay anything into the fund? Where's the fairness in that?

 

As for income taxes, the amount someone has taken out of each of their "precious" paychecks is easily controlled. Changing the number of exemptions on a W-4 form will take care of that, so that they can take home more money each month, while still paying their fair share of income taxes.

 

Also, it's been my own personal experience that most families in "dire" financial straits have their financial priorities out of whack. Cutting out cable TV or not buying so many stupid DVD's or not paying $110 for some goddamn LeBron James tennis shoes their kids endlessly begged to have, as just a few simple examples, can go a long way to paying for a "trip to the grocery store."

Wow...yep, you really understand the situation duder.

More like your just being an arrogent ass who can't refute the argument so you'll just leave a pithy quote and a smiley at the end so you can try and think that you've somehow salvaged a victory here.

"pithy"

-Bill O' Reilly

 

 

Seriously, Im not going to waste time arguing this,

 

The realitis of working class life is what I, and others here, have allready discussed.

 

The arguement is RNC rhetoric.

 

I agree with the lives and situations that are right in front of my eyes. I will not stand behind a parties political rhetoric in the face of its glaring inconstistencies and total disregard for the actual situan in America.

[Guest BDC]

But you're willing to attack one relatively small group of people because they're different? Or the fact that they're different being financial make it all better?

[snuffbox 0]

But you're willing to attack one relatively small group of people because they're different? Or the fact that they're different being financial make it all better?

I have NOTHING against the wealthy. Nothing. For the most part they seem to be fine, respectable people. There are obviously some exceptions to that rule(Kenny Boy Lay) just as there are bad apples in the poor sect(Ed Gein).

 

This is not a 'personal' thing. It is just really obvious that the rich can afford taxation and the poor can not. This is reality though, not political rhetoric.

 

Personally, as a libertarian, I am all for tax cuts across the board. Check http://www.lp.org for further reading.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Hint: When one side doesn't WANT to be united, it can't happen.

-=Mike

It would have helped if he didn't start lying the moment he got into office. All those claims about how the Clinton administration had totally vandalized the White House and left it in a condition completely unfit to run a government? Investigated by Congress, found out to be false.

 

But yes, even the biggest idealogue could be considered a uniter if suddently the entire country shifts to his view.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Seriously, Im not going to waste time arguing this,

 

The realitis of working class life is what I, and others here, have allready discussed.

 

The arguement is RNC rhetoric.

 

I agree with the lives and situations that are right in front of my eyes. I will not stand behind a parties political rhetoric in the face of its glaring inconstistencies and total disregard for the actual situan in America.

 

If you are going to insinuate that one side of the argument is rhetoric, and then cleverly forget how you want to argue your own point, you're not exactly better than the other person, now are we?

 

Interesting article about Bush in Friday's Boston Globe:

 

HEADLINE: CAMPAIGN 2004 / THE GOP FAITHFUL;

REPUBLICANS WAITING FOR BUSH TO SHARPEN HIS FOCUS

 

BYLINE: By Wayne Washington, Globe Staff

 

BODY:

WASHINGTON - Republicans are increasingly worried about President Bush's reelection prospects as he struggles to combat questions about his credibility and as some polls released this week indicate that he is trailing his Democratic rivals by significant margins.

 

Members of the president's party said he must better control the information coming out of the administration - which in the last two weeks has been forced to backtrack on an assertion that "outsourcing" jobs overseas is good for the economy and on an overly rosy jobs forecast. They also want him to control surging government spending that has opened him up to charges of fiscal irresponsibility.

 

  A poll released yesterday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center indicated sharp increases in the numbers of voters concerned about the rising deficit and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That poll indicated Bush was tied with Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts in a prospective matchup, but others indicated Kerry was far ahead - 12 percentage points in a CNN poll by the Gallup organization.

 

"I would describe the mood among conservatives right now as frightened," said Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a conservative advocacy group that supports Republican policies.

 

Republicans who expressed concern about Bush's prospects point out that the president has eight months to improve his standing before facing voters and that criticism of the president has gotten a lot of attention from the news media as Democratic candidates compete for their party's nomination.

 

But they add that many of the president's problems have been self-inflicted. The concerns about job creation and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have been exacerbated by his administration's refusal to acknowledge the extent of the problems. His appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" was weak, they said. And his administration has failed to control federal spending, contributing to a budget deficit that has exploded past $500 billion.

 

"For the first time," said a top staff member for a GOP senator, "some Republicans are facing the prospect that the president could lose."

 

While Democrats have charged that Bush faces a "credibility gap" over issues such as weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and off-target job predictions, Republicans say the administration has done a poor job of telling voters its side of things.

 

"There is an increasing wonder in Republican circles about why the administration has been so ham-handed in getting their message out," the staffer said.

 

Bush's interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," coming on the heels of a report from former weapons inspector David Kay that Iraq probably had no weapons of mass destruction, did not help as much as it could have, Republicans said.

 

"He wasn't as focused on Russert as he should have been," said Pete du Pont, former governor of Delaware and a 1988 GOP presidential candidate. "That was clear for everybody to see."

 

Kerry and his main rival for the Democratic nomination, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, have hammered Bush on the issue of job creation. About 2.3 million jobs have been lost during the Bush presidency, and on Wednesday, the administration backed away from a recent economic report the president signed predicting that 2.6 million jobs would be created this year.

 

Administration officials say Democratic complaints about the jobs prediction are nothing more than election-year political posturing.

 

Bush held another discussion on the economy yesterday, inviting five people to the White House to share their stories of how tax cuts the president pushed through Congress saved them money. The setup of the discussion was similar to those the president has held in battleground states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, which have lost thousands of manufacturing jobs.

 

Some of the tax cuts passed by Congress are scheduled to expire over the next several years, and Bush used yesterday's discussion to ask members to make them permanent. "It's time to keep this recovery strong by doing what's right with the tax code," Bush said.

 

Conservative Republicans have been supportive of the president's tax-cutting policies, but are unhappy about discretionary spending, which has increased by an annual average of 8 percent, more than three times the level of spending under President Clinton.

 

"He really needs to do something on the spending side," du Pont said. "He needs to focus on it."

 

Administration officials have promised to get tough on spending, threatening to veto a major transportation bill if it calls for more than $256 billion to be spent on roads, tunnels, and bridges over the next six years. Bush has not vetoed a single piece of legislation and the Senate ignored his veto threat, voting overwhelmingly in favor of a $318 billion transportation bill. The House is contemplating a bill that calls for even more transportation spending.

 

The transportation bill gives Bush a chance to show his seriousness about spending. Some believe it would be embarrassing for the president in an election year to have the House and Senate, controlled by members of his own party, override his veto. But if he does not veto the bill, conservatives will be upset, and the news media will focus again on his unwillingness to do something he said he would do.

 

"That's a tough veto," du Pont said. "If affects a lot of states. But he needs to say, 'Take this bill back, get $50 billion out of it, and get it back to me.' "

 

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative group that advocates lower taxes, said he is confident Bush will be reelected, but he agreed with other Republicans who are concerned about Bush's spending. They see the rising deficit and rising spending and want to change course, he said.

 

"People recognize they're in a pot of water and it's getting hot," he said.

 

Anyways...

[Guest MikeSC]

Hint: When one side doesn't WANT to be united, it can't happen.

          -=Mike

It would have helped if he didn't start lying the moment he got into office. All those claims about how the Clinton administration had totally vandalized the White House and left it in a condition completely unfit to run a government? Investigated by Congress, found out to be false.

 

But yes, even the biggest idealogue could be considered a uniter if suddently the entire country shifts to his view.

Ironically, Bush's administration officially stated that not much happened and that they weren't going to press the issue.

 

Let's not ignore that.

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

Hint: When one side doesn't WANT to be united, it can't happen.

           -=Mike

It would have helped if he didn't start lying the moment he got into office. All those claims about how the Clinton administration had totally vandalized the White House and left it in a condition completely unfit to run a government? Investigated by Congress, found out to be false.

 

But yes, even the biggest idealogue could be considered a uniter if suddently the entire country shifts to his view.

Ironically, Bush's administration officially stated that not much happened and that they weren't going to press the issue.

 

Let's not ignore that.

-=Mike

After they had ALREADY pressed it.

 

Lets not forget that either.

[Firestarter 0]

Yet another example of those bloodsucking billionaires exploiting poor working-class folks

[Guest MikeSC]

Hint: When one side doesn't WANT to be united, it can't happen.

           -=Mike

It would have helped if he didn't start lying the moment he got into office. All those claims about how the Clinton administration had totally vandalized the White House and left it in a condition completely unfit to run a government? Investigated by Congress, found out to be false.

 

But yes, even the biggest idealogue could be considered a uniter if suddently the entire country shifts to his view.

Ironically, Bush's administration officially stated that not much happened and that they weren't going to press the issue.

 

Let's not ignore that.

-=Mike

After they had ALREADY pressed it.

 

Lets not forget that either.

Don't remember Bush or his people mentioning it at all. It was big on the Drudge Report, but I don't remember Bush's people ever discussing it.

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

Yet another example of those bloodsucking billionaires exploiting poor working-class folks

When a family of four worth $3 billion gives away a third of their fortune, they are left with $2 billion.

 

When a family of four worth nothing and give 1/3 of their weekly $500, they are left with approx. $325.

 

A big difference, this is simple math.

 

There isnt anything inherantly bad or evil or non-hardworking about the wealthy. Just the obvious point that tthey can afford to lose a bigger portion of their money than the working class.