Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Who would vote for Kerry

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: MonsterMark

There is no doubt if Kerry is elected, he will drop the ball on the War on Terror.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Posted on another site...
http://patriotpetitions.us/Kerry/

To Senate President Richard Cheney, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Attorney General John Ashcroft
We, the People of these United States, rightfully petition our national government to prosecute John Kerry for "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" and to disqualify him for national office.

Kerry has a long and well-documented history of providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of war -- particularly in the case of North Vietnam, Nicaragua and Cuba. Kerry, by his own account of his actions and protests, violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Kerry met, on two occasions, with North Vietnamese negotiators in 1970 and 1971, willingly placing himself in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S. Constitution, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

Thus, in accordance with the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," We, the People of these United States, believe John F. Kerry is unfit for public office.

It is for this reason -- for his record of giving aid and comfort to the enemy while a member of the U.S. Armed Forces in violation of this oath -- that Senator Kerry should be prosecuted and disqualified for national office.

Signed,

Posted by: Joeychgo

Oh - and how about this ---

Troops in Iraq face pay cut
Pentagon says tough duty bonuses are budget-buster

Posted by: MonsterMark

I totally disagree with the Pentagon. In fact , I think their pay should even be raised from what they are currently getting. Our troops should be the A-1 priority as far as I am concerned.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I totally disagree with the Pentagon. In fact , I think their pay should even be raised from what they are currently getting. Our troops should be the A-1 priority as far as I am concerned.

ah, tell thet to GW and rumsfield ---

Posted by: apbpetey

That pay cut isn't really a pay cut. The Troops were given extra pay knowing it would only be a temp thing. I have a friend in that is in the military and asked him about it. He said when they were told about getting extra pay they were also told that nobody knew how long they would be able to get it.

IMO I think they need to pay the actors, and sports people less and raise the pay of those that are protecting us. Without the military where would we all be.

Posted by: pepperman

the people in the military should be the priority.

Posted by: Kbob

Congress and the president would be fools if they didn't extend the extra pay. They've done it before and they will continue to. The "pay cut" headline is just a common scare tactic in liberal (no offense intended there) editorials.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

Congress and the president would be fools if they didn't extend the extra pay. They've done it before and they will continue to. The "pay cut" headline is just a common scare tactic in liberal (no offense intended there) editorials.

im sure they will, til after the election at least

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

im sure they will, til after the election at least

Exactly, both Republicans and Democrats will vote for it because it's politically correct. It's definitely a bi-partisan issue.

Posted by: Marine

It's true about the pay only being temporary, Im sure it will be extended. I really like the part about disqualifying Kerry based on article 3 of the UCMJ. You guys rock. (the liberals dont, they just kinda hum)

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marine

I really like the part about disqualifying Kerry based on article 3 of the UCMJ.

150,000 signatures and rising fast! I encourage every American to join in and prevent this guy (Kerry) from EVER being President. In fact, if he quits the race now, I'll vote for Edwards. Deal?

Posted by: Joeychgo

I absolutely agree there are better candidates out there..........

Posted by: Punisher

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

I absolutely agree there are better candidates out there..........

Yea just have the republicans get a new candidate and the dems get a new 1, and this election will be 100x better.

Posted by: MonsterMark

U.S. Near Seizing bin Laden, Official Says

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040904/D84T2OUO0.html

Sep 4, 4:58 PM (ET)

By MATTHEW PENNINGTON

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - The United States and its allies have moved closer to capturing Osama bin Laden in the last two months, a top U.S. counterterrorism official said in a television interview broadcast Saturday.

"If he has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught," Joseph Cofer Black, the U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, told private Geo television network.

Asked if concrete progress had been made during the last two months - when Pakistan has arrested dozens of terror suspects including some key al-Qaida operatives - Black said, "Yes, I would say this."

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quotes are from Douglas Brinkley...Kerry's biographer. I would say that Kerry's boat is sinking swiftly.

Sunday, Sept. 5, 2004 1:22 p.m. EDT
Brinkley: Navy Probe Could Doom Kerry Campaign

Sen. John Kerry's campaign biographer Douglas Brinkley said Sunday that if an ongoing Navy investigation into Kerry's military decorations turns up evidence of "purposeful" deception, it could spell doom for the top Democrat's White House bid.

Praising reporter Thomas Lipscomb, who broke news of the Navy investigation on Friday, Brinkley told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg, "Journalists are going to have to see whether there's a discrepancy on [the citations posted to Kerry's] web site - whether there's something wrong that's said there or not."

Story Continues Below

"If so," said the "Tour of Duty" author, "Kerry would have to fix it immediately - and it does raise some questions as to why that would happen."
"Is it sloppiness, is it purposeful intent, is there an easy explanation for it?" Brinkley wondered.

He said that while questions raised by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth about Kerry's war record have been very damaging, "so far they haven't been lethal." But Brinkley predicted that a discrepancy with Kerry's medals could seriously escalate his political problems.

Asked if inconsistencies uncovered by the Navy probe could be the "death knell" for Kerry's campaign, Brinkley told Malzberg, "It could."

In the next breath he hastened to add, however, "Right now it's unclear. So we have to just wait to see what all this adds up to."

The presidential historian called on Kerry to authorize the release of his full military file, saying, "Clearly some of these military records should be made available to the press."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/5/132437.shtml

Posted by: Pepsi2185

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punisher

Yea just have the republicans get a new candidate and the dems get a new 1, and this election will be 100x better.

Im gonna have to go ahead and second that one. You can hardly imagine that the government was origionally put together to help the people and run the country.

Posted by: mespock

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

U.S. Near Seizing bin Laden, Official Says

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040904/D84T2OUO0.html

Sep 4, 4:58 PM (ET)

By MATTHEW PENNINGTON

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - The United States and its allies have moved closer to capturing Osama bin Laden in the last two months, a top U.S. counterterrorism official said in a television interview broadcast Saturday.

"If he has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught," Joseph Cofer Black, the U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, told private Geo television network.

Asked if concrete progress had been made during the last two months - when Pakistan has arrested dozens of terror suspects including some key al-Qaida operatives - Black said, "Yes, I would say this."

Everyone knows that Bin Laden will be caught close the the election. It's the only way Bush can get elected. It's certainly not on his ability to lead the country. Smoke screen to cover up all the crap of the Bush administration.

I don't think Bush can rely on old Jeb to save him this time.

Also, watch how rich Bush and VP Mr. Chaney get after their term in office are over. All these two have done is set themselves up for life. I truly doubt Bush cares about Americans, but he does care about himself and all his friends.

What I really want to know is durning the Bush term what has he done for me!

(Don't say made me safer, I'd feel less safe traveling now as an American than I would before Bush)

Posted by: pepperman

i won't vote for kerry

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by mespock

What I really want to know is durning the Bush term what has he done for me!

Hey Rich, how ya doin. Hopefully your back full speed to fill those little brains of mush with lots of wisdom. Your a school teacher. I would think that this is a good start.
The NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND Act.
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/impo...s.jhtml?src=ln

And just to show you that money can't buy intelligence, take a look at how well Clinton spent your money. Bet you wish you could have a refund....

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by mespock

What I really want to know is durning the Bush term what has he done for me!

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy (JFK)

Posted by: mespock

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy (JFK)

Oh wasn't that another great Democrate, and Didn't he also serve on a Navy Swift style boat, PT 109. Hmmm

Posted by: Punisher

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

To me it looks like Clinton is the 1 who started spending alot more on education. Its good to see that Bush hasnt stoped what Clinton started.

Posted by: mespock

No child left behind has a big problem! It leave the too many behind.

Even our republican administrators don't like what it does for education. The money doesn't get to were it is needed.

But it sure looks good when you can say no child left behind.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by mespock

Oh wasn't that another great Democrate, and Didn't he also serve on a Navy Swift style boat, PT 109. Hmmm

If you really look at JFK's record, you will see he was way more a Republican in today's definition than a Democrat.

Yes, he served on a PT boat. That is EXACTLY why Kerry wanted to serve on one. He thought it would further his political career. To bad it was this kind of boat that sunk him.

Hmmm.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by mespock

No child left behind has a big problem! It leave the too many behind..

Ah, but you therefore admit that it is helping the plurality of kids, just not all of them. That is why school choice is making such huge inroads in this country. Poor people get a chance to enhance the quality of education for their children. I find it amusing to see that the majority of Democrats and the teachers union are against school choice. Hmmm. Wonder why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mespock

Even our republican administrators don't like what it does for education. The money doesn't get to were it is needed.

So get rid of the people that are sucking it up. Education has to be the most bloated system in this country.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

So get rid of the people that are sucking it up. Education has to be the most bloated system in this country.

I agree 100%. Education is a sore spot with me because of all the waste. And the teacher unions fight EVERYTHING to do with education that doesn't pour more money into their system or that require some form of accountability. All I hear from them is more money, more money, more money!

I'll tell you something GW has done for me: he's lowered my taxes.

And isn't it funny how almost everyone knows and admires that line from Kennedy. Yet imagine the backlash any candidate would receive if he/she embraced that ideology today.

Please don't compare Kerry with Kennedy. Kerry may want to be associated with him in any way, but in the words of Benson, "you are no Jack Kennedy."

Posted by: MonsterMark

Maybe it could be that you forgot about the money that Bush put directly INTO YOUR POCKET that seem so easy to forget.

Your 2003 Advance Child Tax Credit

</IMG> It seems just yesterday when you got that check in the mail for the Advance Child Tax Credit. How much was it? $400? $800? $1233? Who can remember?!!

How easy we forget............................

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punisher

To me it looks like Clinton is the 1 who started spending alot more on education. Its good to see that Bush hasnt stoped what Clinton started.

Yes Punisher. Clinton proved that you just cannot throw money at a problem.

Posted by: mespock

I still don't see the money that is suppose to have gone in my pocket.

If that little check we got a few years ago was suppose to do me wonders I would have rather it been used to help the Deficit, or Social Securtiy, or Medicare etc. The W tax breaks don't reach my level.

My income has not changed in the past 4 years except I am making a few $3K less than I did about 5 years ago.

But I do see spending the has been going on by the present administration, we are spending more to help a country that we blew apart than we are taking care of our own, think about how those billions could have been used in Florida with another huricane on the way. We'd have a lot more left for many other venture.

Try as you want but I cannot see anything good that has happened since the big W took office.

Homeland security would have happened with any person who was in office after 911.

I don't feel safer since but I do feel like my rights have been infringed upon, mainly many of My freedoms given to me in 1776 I feel are gone due to the homeland security act.

The way Mr. W handled going to war in Iraq embarrassed me as an American. I am not proud that my country has the power to destroy any country on the face of this earth, being bully never impressed me. The only respect America received from the world is that we can beat up a small country, and we are not affraid to do it. It's not my way.

But the war issue is not my issues, and Mr. Kerry may not be the right answer but I’ve watched 4 yrs of Mr. W and I’m not impressed.

If he could have impressed me Hey way to go. I don’t think that Mr. Gore would have been any better. I’m still waiting for a real candidate. Someone with real character and leadership skills. But until then I know I don’t want Mr. W.

Nice thing about America we get to vote and state our opinion. My opinion I feel comfortable with someone else in the Oval office.

The other great thing about America is we can have a different opinion than our friend and still be able to be friends. I don’t have to worry that you’re going to bomb my car because I don’t agree.

Good Luck 11/2/04 may the man with the most votes win - Oops that happend already and he lost LOL.

Posted by: Lincolnman

Why would anyone elect a man who stole the last election. He didn't win the popular vote. The Supreme Court gave him the presidency. The stock market crashed as soon as he stole the election. We used to have a surplus, now we have a huge deficit. As soon as he took office jobs started laying people off in droves. I could go on and on but the rich republicans and the dumb poor republicans aren't hearing me any way. Go Kerry!!!

Posted by: Kbob

You guys just keep posting the same exact anti-Bush propaganda that we've addressed over and over. That's your opinion and your right. I don't have the energy to go through everything again. Suffice it to say that I respectfully disagree. You can blame Bush for everything if you want to, if that makes you feel better. Happy voting.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by mespock

I still don't see the money that is suppose to have gone in my pocket.

If that little check we got a few years ago was suppose to do me wonders I would have rather it been used to help the Deficit, or Social Securtiy, or Medicare etc. The W tax breaks don't reach my level.

The US government does not prohibit taxpayers from paying additional funds in to the system, so feel free to pay down the deficit, or prop up Social Security, or pay someone else's Medicare premium with the money George W. gave you.

I would like to know one (1) freedom that you have experienced that was taken away by Bush? And going thru a metal detector doesn't count. You have to do that just to walk into a bar now.

Posted by: mespock

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...y_schools_dc_3

No child left behind

Posted by: Lincolnman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

You guys just keep posting the same exact anti-Bush propaganda that we've addressed over and over. That's your opinion and your right. I don't have the energy to go through everything again. Suffice it to say that I respectfully disagree. You can blame Bush for everything if you want to, if that makes you feel better. Happy voting.

The country was better off in Clintons first four years than the Bushman's first four years. DUH!

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincolnman

The country was better off in Clintons first four years than the Bushman's first four years. DUH!

Yeah, it always helps when the World Trade Centers aren't completely destroyed by a major terrorist organization. I remember Clintons first term. He pushed and pushed a socialistic health care reform package that had no hope of passing. Thanks to that the democrats lost control of congress. He wasn't all bad, though. Hey, I got an idea, why don't you vote for him instead? I like your term for GW btw. And welcome to the new millenium.

Posted by: Lincolnman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

His healthcare package didn't pass because of the pig headed republicans in congress who don't give a rats ass about the common ordinary taxpaying citizen. They are too busy with their wealthy special interests. You damn right I would vote for Clinton again if I could. Buy the way did you hear our slimey vice president Cheney say that if we elect Kerry there would be a terrorist attack? What a lowlife. He makes Nixon seem like a saint

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincolnman

I, sir, am a common ordinary taxpaying citizen. And the tax cuts I have received due to GW have been a heck of a lot, which is proof to me that at least a rats rear has been given. Clinton screwed the democrats in his first term, plain and simple, and lost the congress. You can deify him if you want, but even Clinton admitted this mistake on Larry King.

I also heard Kerry complaining how Bush spent $200 billion on Iraq. Yet he has also said that we're not spending enough in Iraq to win the war!? Make up your mind Mr. Kerry!

Posted by: Lincolnman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

You sir must be the common ordinary taxpaying citizen who is rich and that is why GW got you a heck of a lot. Us middleclass citizens got "trickel down" money! Clinton made a lot of mistakes, but overall he left the country in good shape. At least there was money in the country's bank when he left.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Government Spending in Current Dollars

1970: Spending in billions of dollars:

Spending as % of GDP: $195.6~~~~~ 19.30%

1975: Spending in billions of dollars:

Spending as % of GDP: $332.3~~~~~ 21.30%

1980: Spending in billions of dollars:

Spending as % of GDP: $590.8~~~~~ 21.60%

1985: Spending in billions of dollars:

Spending as % of GDP: $946.4~~~~~ 22.90%

1990: Spending in billions of dollars:

Spending as % of GDP: $1,253,2~~~~ 21.80%

1995: Spending in billions of dollars:

Spending as % of GDP: $1,515.8~~~~ 20.70%

2000: Spending in billions of dollars:

Spending as % of GDP: $1,788.8~~~~ 18.40%

2004 (projected): Spending in billions of dollars:

Spending as % of GDP: $2,295.0~~~~ 20.00%

As you can see, Clinton was spending the same % of GDP as Bush is, and Clinton didn't have to fight the war on terror.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincolnman

I am middle class. And if you now want to question the integrity of my posts, I'm through with replying to you. Have a good life.

Posted by: SC_Steve

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincolnman

:shrug: I make more each week as a result of GWB and IMO, the tax cut also helped me climb out of debt.

I am barely middle class BTW

and to all of those that blame Bush for the economy.... first off, the economy was heading into a recession before he even took office, secondly we had some big corperate scandals (enron and adelphia... anyone remember that?) and then to top it all off, the attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon.

I mean seriously... if you're going to bitch about something... atleast make some sense. The stock market plumited after 9/11 and came extremely close to crashing. Investors were nervous and it was a very slow climb after that.

Now do I think Clinton was a bad president? Hell no... he may have not been the most moral person but he did ok for us. Is Bush a bad president? Hell no... could things be better? yeah but he was ELECTED just as $hit was about to hit the fan and I really don't think anyone could have done anybetter with the cards that were delt

oh and back to the origional question... will I vote for Kerry? No... I have no idea where he truly stands on anything (except for raising taxes) and that makes me nervous. Atleast with Bush I know what we're getting

-Steve

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Ford announcing pending layoffs. Iraq death toll cresting 1000 (but we're not "at war"......... rrrrrrrriiiiiiiiight!). Bush's unflattering (that's an understatement) ANG records coming to surface (Mr. "Daddy's campaign is more important than our country's security"). Greenspan's gloomy outlook for social security. Yeah, I like the direction GW has this country headed........ NOT!

Kerry can count on my vote.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Ford announcing pending layoffs. Iraq death toll cresting 1000 (but we're not "at war"......... rrrrrrrriiiiiiiiight!). Bush's unflattering (that's an understatement) ANG records coming to surface (Mr. "Daddy's campaign is more important than our country's security"). Greenspan's gloomy outlook for social security. Yeah, I like the direction GW has this country headed........ NOT!

Kerry can count on my vote.

Don't forget the 2, maybe soon to be 3, hurricanes that hit Florida recently. All Bush's fault no doubt

Posted by: SC_Steve

lol it sure is...

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Ford announcing pending layoffs.

Maybe they should think of making cars people want to buy. That might help their situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Iraq death toll cresting 1000 (but we're not "at war"......... rrrrrrrriiiiiiiiight!).

The Jed Foundation is an organization that speaks to the issue of campus suicide. The Jed Foundation says:

Suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death among college-age students.
-Suicide attempts pose the greatest life-threatening danger for college women.
-The rate of suicide among young males has tripled since 1970.
There are almost 1,100 suicides projected to occur on campuses this year. [emphasis added]
Humm, since Saddam invaded Kuwait, there have been more than 12,000 suicides among young men and women of military recruitment age vs the less than 1200 Killed in Action in the same time frame protecting our freedom. At least our military die with honor instead of taking the easy way out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Bush's unflattering (that's an understatement) ANG records coming to surface (Mr. "Daddy's campaign is more important than our country's security").

Wait, we haven't even got to Mr. Kerry's Paris meeting with the commies, or his presence at the meeting in Kansas City in which the VVAW discussed the assasination of US Senators. We have been thru President Bush's dirty laundry, time to see some of Mr. Kerry's crusties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Greenspan's gloomy outlook for social security.

Here is the problem with Social Security in a nutshell.
[Social Security has evolved from humble beginnings in 1935 as a program of "forced saving" intended to ensure retirement income for the elderly into its present form: a complex, resource-intensive program that redistributes income across individuals and households based on a wide variety of characteristics. In general, Social Security favors low-wage earners over high-wage earners, older workers over younger workers, women over men, and immigrant workers over U.S.-born workers. The "average" U.S. worker faces a rate of return on contributions that is quite low--less than 2% after adjusting for inflation. By comparison, the real yield on a 10-year inflation-indexed Treasury Bond is currently around 3.5%. In addition to being low, rates of return from Social Security must be viewed as risky because they are subject to change from future political actions that will be needed to ensure long-term solvency of the program. [emphasis added] Under intermediate demographic and economic assumptions, Gokhale (1998) reports that the OASI payroll tax rate must be increased by about 4 percentage points (from 10.7 to 14.6%) to pay for projected benefits on an ongoing basis, i.e., for 75 years and beyond. Alternatively, long-term solvency could be achieved by cutting benefits by 25%. Either action would reduce the real rate of return for the average U.S. worker to around 1%. A tax increase would be disproportionately borne by young workers (who are further from retirement) whereas a cut in benefits would penalize young and old workers in a more even-handed way. While numerous ideas for reforming Social Security exist, none have yet to be formally proposed in the U.S. Congress. Continued delays in addressing Social Security's long-term financing problem will only lead to more painful adjustments in the future.]Kevin Lansing, Economist

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Yeah, I like the direction GW has this country headed........ NOT! Kerry can count on my vote.

Hey, more power to you. I think Kerry is a traitor and a treasonist and would be the LAST person I would ever vote for. I'd even reach and say I would vote for Hillary before this guy. Fortunately, the country is figuring this out just-in-time to prevent a worldwide catastrophy.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Thanks for the tangental arguments.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Thanks for the tangental arguments.

Hahaha, the pot calling the kettle black, lol! No . . . really . . . thank you!

Posted by: MonsterMark

OK let's try these on for size.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Ford announcing pending layoffs.

Foreign brands are stars in US sales 02/09/2004 08:33

General Motors and Ford reported disappointing US sales on Wednesday, prompting the two largest US car manufacturers to cut planned vehicle production in the fourth quarter, which could hurt profits. Meanwhile, the top two Japanese carmakers had uncharacteristically underwhelming months. Toyota saw sales slip nearly 3%, while Honda's business was off 7.1%.
The sluggishness, however, wasn't felt among all major carmakers reporting August results. The Chrysler Group, the smallest of Detroit's Big Three, said sales rose slightly. Nissan, Suzuki, BM and Volvo of North America were among the foreign brands posting sizable sales increases. [snip]

No. 2 Ford also had a sub-par month, saying overall sales of its Ford, Lincoln and Mercury brands fell 5.9%, again pulled down on the car side. Car sales were off 22%. Truck sales grew one percent.

If Ford could build cars people actually wanted to buy, would there still be layoffs? Let me guess. Bush's fault.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Iraq death toll cresting 1000 (but we're not "at war"......... rrrrrrrriiiiiiiiight!).

Despite headlines, global war casualties decline
Posted on Tuesday, August 31 @ 09:45:00

(AP) -- The chilling sights and sounds of war fill newspapers and television screens worldwide, but war itself is in decline, peace researchers report.

In fact, the number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meantime, are growing in number.

"International engagement is blossoming," said American scholar Monty G. Marshall. "There's been an enormous amount of activity to try to end these conflicts."

For months the battle reports and casualty tolls from Iraq and Afghanistan have put war in the headlines, but Swedish and Canadian non-governmental groups tracking armed conflict globally find a general decline in numbers from peaks in the 1990's.

The authoritative Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in a 2004 Yearbook report obtained by The Associated Press in advance of publication, says 19 major armed conflicts were under way worldwide in 2003, a sharp drop from 33 wars counted in 1991.

The Canadian organization Project Ploughshares, using broader criteria to define armed conflict, says in its new annual report that the number of conflicts declined to 36 in 2003, from a peak of 44 in 1995.

The Stockholm institute counts continuing wars that have produced 1,000 or more battle-related deaths in any single year. Project Ploughshares counts any armed conflict that produces 1,000 such deaths cumulatively.

The Stockholm report, to be released in September, notes three wars ended as of 2003 -- in Angola, Rwanda and Somalia -- and a fourth, the separatist war in India's Assam state, was dropped from the "major" category after casualties were recalculated.

It lists three new wars in 2003 -- in Liberia and in Sudan's western region of Darfur, along with the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq. These joined such long-running conflicts as the Kashmiri insurgency in India, the leftist guerrilla war in Colombia, and the separatist war in Russia's Chechnya region.

Other major armed conflicts listed by the Stockholm researchers were in Algeria, Burundi, Peru, Indonesia's Aceh province, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Israel, and Turkey. Their list also includes the U.S.-al-Qaeda war, mainly in Afghanistan, the unresolved India-Pakistan conflict, and two insurgencies in the Philippines.

"Not only are the numbers declining, but the intensity" -- the bloodshed in each conflict -- "is declining," said Marshall, founder of a University of Maryland program studying political violence.

The continuing wars in Algeria, Chechnya and Turkey are among those that have subsided into low-intensity conflicts. At Canada's University of British Columbia, scholars at the Human Security Center are quantifying this by tackling the difficult task of calculating war casualties worldwide for their Human Security Report, to be released late in 2004.

Look, most of the world considers these "WARS", as do the majority of Americans. But Hmmm, if you look closely, there is less worldwide bloodshed under Bush than there was under Clinton! Compare the '95 and '03 numbers. How can that be explained?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Bush's unflattering (that's an understatement) ANG records coming to surface (Mr. "Daddy's campaign is more important than our country's security").

This article appears in the March 8, 2004, issue of National Review.

Ask retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed whether the press has accurately reported what he said about George W. Bush, and you'll get an earful. "No, I don't think they have," he begins. Turnipseed, the former head of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group of the Alabama Air National Guard, was widely quoted as saying he never saw Bush in Alabama in 1972, and if the future president had been there, he would remember. In fact, Turnipseed says, he doesn't recall whether Bush was there or not; the young flier, then a complete unknown in Alabama, was never part of the 900-man 187th, so Turnipseed wouldn't have had much reason to notice him. But most reporters haven't been interested in Turnipseed's best recollection. "They don't understand the Guard, they don't want to understand the Guard, and they hate Bush," he says. "So when I say, ‘There's a good possibility that Bush showed up,' why would they put that in their articles?"[snip]

FOUR YEARS OF FLYING

The controversy over Bush's service centers on what his critics call "the period in question," that is, the time from May 1972 until May 1973. What is not mentioned as often is that that period was in fact Bush's fifth year in the Guard, one that followed four years of often intense service.

Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training — a full-time job — at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training — again, full time — at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training — full time — at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Counting other, shorter, postings in between, by the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty.

Certified to fly the F-102 fighter plane, Bush then began a period of frequent — usually weekly — flying. The F-102 was designed to shoot down other fighter planes, and the missions Bush flew were training flights, mostly over the Gulf of Mexico and often at night, in which pilots took turns being the predator and the prey."If you're going to practice how to shoot down another airplane, then you have to have another airplane up there to work on," recalls retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. "He'd be the target for the first half of the mission, and then we'd switch."

During that period Bush's superiors gave him consistently high ratings as a pilot. "Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer," wrote one in a 1972 evaluation. Another evaluation, in 1971, called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a third rating, in 1970, said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was also "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."

Bush put in over 5 years in the ANG. Trained over 80 weeks. Flew over 330 hours. In '71, the Air National Guard had an overabundance of pilots and the war was winding down. So it was customary to allow guardmans with many years of service to move on to other events in their lives.

Bush served honorably and got an honorable discharge 6 months after exiting the Guard.

Contrast that with Kerry who served 1 and 1/3 tours (although he always says 2 tours, which is not accurate), then came home, joined a bunch of hippies protesting the war; threw away his unearned medals; plotted with the enemy; stole the honor all all who served before and after him; enabled the communists to slaughter millions of people after the US pulled out; has his pictured framed as a hero in a North Vietnam museum; is a self-confessed war criminal who should actually be in jail, lies and flip-flops to this day; married into wealth not once, but twice; has never had a real job and the one he has he doesn't bother to show up at to vote when required and spent 20 years in the Senate with no legislation to his name. Should I go on and on?

And here we are whining about the fact that Bush went to work on a political campaign after serving 4 years in the ANG? Give me a break.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Greenspan's gloomy outlook for social security. Yeah, I like the direction GW has this country headed........ NOT!

I'll pass, already covered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Kerry can count on my vote.

I think many people will be quite unhappy come election day. Can't wait to see the faces on the major news anchors as they have to report the sweep.

Posted by: Lincolnman

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Government Spending in Current Dollars

1970: Spending in billions of dollars:

Spending as % of GDP: $195.6~~~~~ 19.30%

1975: Spending in billions of dollars:

Spending as % of GDP: $332.3~~~~~ 21.30%

1980: Spending in billions of dollars:

Spending as % of GDP: $590.8~~~~~ 21.60%

1985: Spending in billions of dollars:

Spending as % of GDP: $946.4~~~~~ 22.90%

1990: Spending in billions of dollars:

Spending as % of GDP: $1,253,2~~~~ 21.80%

1995: Spending in billions of dollars:

Spending as % of GDP: $1,515.8~~~~ 20.70%

2000: Spending in billions of dollars:

Spending as % of GDP: $1,788.8~~~~ 18.40%

2004 (projected): Spending in billions of dollars:

Spending as % of GDP: $2,295.0~~~~ 20.00%

As you can see, Clinton was spending the same % of GDP as Bush is, and Clinton didn't have to fight the war on terror.

Clinton also didn't start a war in Iraq that was totally insane. You have proven my point.

Posted by: Lincolnman

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC_Steve

I only got back $650 from my tax cut. Would that get you out of debt? I doubt it! Why is it that when the republicans are in office, the economy is always bad?

Posted by: Lincolnman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

I am middle class. And if you now want to question the integrity of my posts, I'm through with replying to you. Have a good life.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincolnman

Why is it that when the republicans are in office, the economy is always bad?

Come on. Show some specifics. This economy right now has a lower unemployment rate than the 70's, 80's and almost all of the 90's. Clinton ran for re-election in '96 based on the superlative job he had done to get the rate down to 5.6%. Right now the rate is 5.4%.

Highest home ownership.
Lowest interest rates.
No attacks since 9/11.
1.7 million new jobs in last year.
We establishing a strong foothold in the Middle East on which to go after Iran next. Then we work with the Chinese to put down North Korea.

I love it when a plan comes together.

The left is grasping at straws. It is fun to watch actually.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Al Quida (sp?) is now claiming they control Afganistan. Good job there gee-dub!

Posted by: SC_Steve

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincolnman

Clinton also didn't start a war in Iraq that was totally insane. You have proven my point.

really now?... you seem to have forgotten about 1998? Granted it wasnt a "war"... but you get my point

Quote:

On August 20, 1998 Bill Clinton launched 79 cruise missiles at seven defenseless targets in the Middle East. One was a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan called El Shifa. A pair of outstanding articles in Covert Action Quarterly (CAQ, Winter, 99) illustrates what a colossal crime was committed by this act of terrorism from our now-unimpeachable president.

and lets not forget Kosovo

Quote:

More civilians--Kosovar refugees, at that--have been killed by allied air strikes. NATO has destroyed China's embassy in Belgrade, dropped cluster bombs on a Serb market, shredded relations with Russia, blasted the Yugoslav economy into rubble, triggered escalating violence against Kosovars, and destabilized all of Southeast Europe.

Yet allied attacks continue. Not just continue, but intensify.

Bill Clinton's war has proved to be one of America's greatest foreign policy debacles. What does the President do? Hire Leslie Dash, vice chairman of Edelman Public Relations Worldwide, to advise the administration on Kosovo. President Clinton should end the war instead.

The President launched an unprovoked war of aggression against a small, distant state. He cynically wrapped his campaign in humanitarianism while ignoring worse slaughters elsewhere. He arrogantly assumed that foreign leaders would genuflect before him. He attacked their nation when they didn't.

How does Bill Clinton justify his war? In a recent speech at National Defense University President Clinton likened events in Kosovo to those in Nazi Germany: a "vicious, premeditated, systematic oppression fueled by religious and ethnic hatred."

This is pure cant. The administration has nothing against "vicious, premeditated, systematic oppression" if committed by allies, like Croatia and Turkey. Or if perpetrated against black Africans.

Moreover, as ugly as was the Kosovo conflict, it was no Nazi Holocaust, but a minor civil war, with casualties a fraction of those occurring in such places as Kashmir and Sri Lanka. Where real genocide results, like Rwanda, President Clinton studiously averts his gaze.

Once it became clear that the administration intended to effectively strip Yugoslavia of Kosovo, however, Belgrade unsurprisingly lashed out. Indeed, allied bombing turned all Kosovars--whose leaders publicly lobbied for NATO intervention-- into enemies of the Serbs.

Yugoslavia wasn't gentle before being bombed. It certainly wasn't going to be gentle afterwards. The number of refugees in Albania and Macedonia jumped from 45,000 to 640,000.

At the same time, the allied war quickly turned into a war on Serb civilians, with strikes on everything from bridges to electrical plants to television stations. The only way NATO can continually intensify the bombing is to widen its target list. And that means more dead civilians.

Accidents may be unavoidable, but they are least justifiable in a supposedly humanitarian war. How many Yugoslavs deserve to die to enable Kosovar refugees to go home? Ethnic cleansing is ugly; premeditated murder is worse.

Of course, Bill Clinton argued in his speech that reducing Yugoslavia to ruins "is the right thing for our security interests over the long run." But he can't really believe that.

The conflict in Kosovo, though messy, was contained until NATO began bombing. The Serbs were attempting to hold onto what they had, not expand. Yugoslavia's earlier civil war did not explode Europe because none of the major powers intervened.

But the administration's maladroit attempt to impose a solution unwanted by either side sparked Belgrade's crackdown, followed by mass refugee flows that destabilized Serbia's fragile neighbors. The war has immeasurably strengthened the Kosovo Liberation Army, which has expansionistic dreams--to unite Albanians throughout the region--vis-a-vis Kosovo's more moderate political leadership.

The NATO countries are fast dividing as they confront Russia, itself sliding towards political chaos. Bill Clinton has spilled gasoline across Europe.

Continued bombing guarantees only continued killing, instability, and failure. Kosovars will suffer and Serbs will die for nothing.

Inaugurating a ground war, and following it with a long-term occupation (Republican presidential candidate Lamar Alexander speaks of "three-to-five decades of patrol") would be far worse. If the Europeans want to turn Kosovo into a protectorate and occupy Belgrade, let them. They have a million men under arms.

The U.S. should stop bombing. Today.

Forget about concerns over credibility. Credibility, like patriotism, is the last refugee of the scoundrel. NATO's credibility is already in tatters. Maintaining, nay, intensifying a manifestly failed policy will rend what little is left.

Instead, Washington should propose negotiations where regional proposals, rather than U.S. dictates, are presented. Discussions need to be led by a country that hasn't warred against Serbia; Russia must participate.

The goals are basic: return of refugees, protection of Kosovars, presence of Western monitors, end of the guerrilla war, and political autonomy for Kosovo.

None of these will be easy to obtain. Thanks to NATO the already deep hatreds in Kosovo have been intensified beyond imagination.

But there is no alternative. It should be tragically obvious by now that Washington cannot impose peace.

The President does have a PR problem with his war. But the problem is the war. The solution is not to hire another media flack. It is to end the war.

besides... who can argue that the world is a better place without Saddam? I mean, the UN and everyone else backed resolution 1441... yet when it came time to do anything about it, a few backed out and wanted to continue letting Saddam do what he wanted instead of making him play by the rules.

Posted by: SC_Steve

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincolnman

I only got back $650 from my tax cut. Would that get you out of debt? I doubt it! Why is it that when the republicans are in office, the economy is always bad?

yeah... my tax cut did help me. Did it pay off my car loan? no... but it helped be get caught up for credit card bills and the such

Quote:

Al Quida (sp?) is now claiming they control Afganistan. Good job there gee-dub!

they also claim that we're the "great satan"

Posted by: Punisher

I think the point people are trying to make with iraq is, there are plenty of other places around the world with a

dictator that the world would probly be better off without. But why Iraq? Why not 1 of the other dozen targets out there? We were told reasons but none of them have panned out. Instead we just get well the world is a better place without saddam. If thats our thinking I guess we got alot more invading of countries to look forward too cause there are plenty of people just as bad as saddam around the world.

Posted by: SC_Steve

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punisher

I think the point people are trying to make with iraq is, there are plenty of other places around the world with a

resolution 1441

saddam gave the world $hit forever. EVERYONE agreed to take him out. Clinton agreed, Kerry agreed, Bush agreed and even a majority of the rest of the world agreed. So the UN wrote up one last resolution saying that if they didn't abide by their rules... there would be millitary action. Well... the deadline came and went.... Bush even gave (I remember watching this on TV two days before we invaded) Saddam one last chance to just leave Iraq and there would be no force used.

Saddam is the one who didn't hold up his end of the bargan so he got forcefully moved out of power. I don't see whats so hard to understand about that.... seriously

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Then you probably also remember GW's plead to the people of the US during his "justification" to attack Iraq / Saddam, something to the effect of....... "This is the man who tried to kill my father." At that point, GW should've been impeached for allowing his personal emotions influence his decisions on taking our entire country to war. Hell, police officers / detectives are not allowed to work cases to which they have personal ties, it's called conflict of interest.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Then you probably also remember GW's plead to the people of the US during his "justification" to attack Iraq / Saddam, something to the effect of....... "This is the man who tried to kill my father." At that point, GW should've been impeached for allowing his personal emotions influence his decisions on taking our entire country to war. Hell, police officers / detectives are not allowed to work cases to which they have personal ties, it's called conflict of interest.

Even though your point is ridiculous, let's continue your argument. Since GW was in a "conflict of interest" he should have passed the decision to someone else. Who? I guess it would have to be Dick Cheney since he's the VP, unless there's a conflict of interest with him, too. The debate from their would be does it remain in the executive branch or does it go to the Speaker of the House or to Congress? But again, the majority of the govt. and the country was in agreement on this issue, so the result would have been the same. We would have gone into Iraq any way you look at it.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

But again, the majority of the govt. and the country was in agreement on this issue, so the result would have been the same. We would have gone into Iraq any way you look at it.

Well, seems to me the "country" was still pretty divided on that issue at that time. But the other point here is, GW played this "sympathy card" in an somewhat sucessful attempt to tilt the "country's" opinion into his favor. This is not much different that 'ol Johnny whats-his-name playing the "race card" during OJ's trial to influence the jury. Typical GOP shady tactics IMO.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

The real division was actually a few months after we went into Iraq. And no political party has a monopoly on shady tactics.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Kerry Running Out of Credibility on Iraq

Today's Kerry Line has the full story. Yesterday, John Kerry put out one of his least credible suggestions on Iraq -- that we're spending too much:

"$200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford after-school programs for our children; $200 billion in Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford health care for our veterans; $200 billion for Iraq, but they tell us we can't afford to keep the 100,000 police officers we put on the street," Kerry said.

But Kerry wasn't as willing to put a price tag on America's safety and security when he told Tim Russert that he was willing to spend whatever it takes:

MR. RUSSERT: "Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?" SEN. KERRY: "No. I think we should increase it." MR. RUSSERT: "Increase funding?" SEN. KERRY: "Yes." MR. RUSSERT: "By how much?" SEN. KERRY: "By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim...."

Flip-Flop, Flip-Flop. That's why he is called John F'in Kerry.

Posted by: Lincolnman

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I guess the trillion dollar debt Bush got us into because of this unneccessary war is a straw too! The interest rates are low because the economy is so bad!

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincolnman

I guess the trillion dollar debt Bush got us into because of this unneccessary war is a straw too! The interest rates are low because the economy is so bad!

Show me the bad economic numbers you speak of. Please!

Posted by: Lincolnman

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Show me the bad economic numbers you speak of. Please!

Ask Mr. Greenspan. He sets the interest rates. Everyone knows the better the economy the higher the rates and vice versa.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincolnman

Ask Mr. Greenspan. He sets the interest rates. Everyone knows the better the economy the higher the rates and vice versa.

Wow, Economics 101.

I guess my businesses would all be going gangbusters and I would be printing money if the interest rates were, lets say, 20% ???

In fact, I want to retire early, so lets raise them to 40% instead.

I'll give you a chance to re-argue your point if you would like.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I'll give you a chance to re-argue your point if you would like.

Ill argue a slightly different point.........

Greenspan and the Fed lowered the interest rates -- Bush had nothing to do with that --

So, how much did lowering the interest rate help bring the economy around? I would speculate that the low low interest rates is what has kept the economy from totally crashing, and thus, was NOT due to GW's efforts.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Show me the bad economic numbers you speak of. Please!

Jan 1, 2001 --- $200 million surplus

June 1, 2004 --- $1 Trillion dollar deficit

Thank god your having more kids Bryan, someone has to pay for this mess.

Posted by: Lincolnman

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Wow, Economics 101.

I guess my businesses would all be going gangbusters and I would be printing money if the interest rates were, lets say, 20% ???

In fact, I want to retire early, so lets raise them to 40% instead.

I'll give you a chance to re-argue your point if you would like.

Did I lie about anything?

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Why is it that during Clinton's administration you argue that Clinton was the reason for the good economic times, but during Bush's term, Bush has nothing to do with it? It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a reasonable discussion when the rules are constantly being changed.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Jan 1, 2001 --- $200 million surplus

June 1, 2004 --- $1 Trillion dollar deficit

Where did these numbers come from? What do they represent? Is the $1 trillion dollars the deficit during Bush's first term? How much was the Clinton deficit in todays dollars? Or any other modern presidents deficit for that matter.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Clinton didnt have a deficit when he left office, he had a surplus......

And as far as changing the rules -- im not. In fact, im not talking about Clinton.

Let me ask you this -- tell me how the economy is better today then when GW took office - and what GW did to make it that way?

Posted by: MonsterMark

The economy is recovering from Clinton's recession, the 9/11 attacks and the wars in Afganistan and Iraq. The stock market has rebounded. I'll find the info needed to reinforce the fact that this country is headed in the right direction and we should maintain the course of low inflation, low interest, and convince Congress to stop spending wildly.

Both Republicans and Democrats are to blame.

Many on the right are not happy with our elected Republicans with them voting to spend, spend, spend, right along with the Democrats. But I guess that is how you get elected. Just promise the moon like Kerry to spend an additional $2 trillion we don't have on programs we don't need.

Posted by: Kbob

This slow dial-up service at home, not to mention the constant interruption calls from my kids' friends are driving me crazy. But I did find that during the Clinton administration, the national debt increased by about $1.5 trillion dollars. That was during a relatively peaceful and prosperous time. Please, no replies saying that "Bush caused the war and the rotten economic times". I've heard it all before. I'm just stating number facts. Every year under Clinton the debt increased. There was NO surplus. The national debt has increased every year since WWII.

I agree that republicans and democrats are to blame for the spending. To have a reasonable discussion we should all agree to this.

My position on the economy has not changed, either. The president does NOT produce a great economy. I simply brought up Clinton because he was the previous democratic president that most people cite as an example. I'm just trying to convey that blaming Bush for the economy is not right IMO. The national debt will have to be addressed, but not at the expense of national security. And domestic funding is next to impossible to decrease politically. The only solution is a bi-partisan solution.

Posted by: Lincolnman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Jan 1, 2001 --- $200 million surplus

June 1, 2004 --- $1 Trillion dollar deficit

Thank god your having more kids Bryan, someone has to pay for this mess.

TELL 'EM JOEY!!!

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

This slow dial-up service at home, not to mention the constant interruption calls from my kids' friends are driving me crazy. But I did find that during the Clinton administration, the national debt increased by about $1.5 trillion dollars.

Wrong buddy.......... a lil less then that

National Debt.........

09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38

However ----- Current national debt is:

09/09/2004 $7,375,299,845,541.56
- 09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
________________________
$1,701,121,635,654.70 -------------

IN 4 years! Half the time and a half a trillion dollars more!!!

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Posted by: Lincolnman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

DON'T STOP NOW!!!

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincolnman

DON'T STOP NOW!!!

THE MAN SAID HE WANTED FACTS............. HE GOT FACTS.

GAME ON!!!!!!!

Posted by: Kbob

Thanks for looking that up, Joey. I was getting my numbers by eyeballing a graph that wasn't very precise.

The activity that this country has seen in the past 3 years more than explains the increase in spending. There should be adjustments for inflation as well. Clinton ran up $1.26 trillion to the deficit in the prosperous and peaceful 90's. There was no surplus as was alleged. During the height of WWII the national debt for 1 year alone was 120% of GDP just to put things into perspective. (This isn't WWII I know.)

Do you agree that if the attack of 9/11 had not occurred that the economy and the national debt would be in a much better position?

As a show of good faith, you said "half a BILLION dollars more", and you meant to say $440 BILLION more.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

THE MAN SAID HE WANTED FACTS............. HE GOT FACTS.

GAME ON!!!!!!!

So Lincolnman is your sidekick, eh? I'll take you both on. I have to do some thinking with you, Joey, but with your sidekick all I need is a BS flag.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Joey, I love the GAME ON! What a hoot.

Can't seem to get the archives to run from Jan 1992 when Clinton entered to Dec 1999 when Clinton left office but these numbers are closer to your reality. It shows more like $2 trillion under Clinton's Term.

The GAME is Really ON! LOL.

09/30/1999~~~5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998~~~5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997~~~5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996~~~5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995~~~4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994~~~4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993~~~4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992~~~4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991~~~3,665,303,351,697.03

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Can't seem to get the archives to run from Jan 1992 when Clinton entered to Dec 1999 when Clinton left office

Clinton was actually in office from Jan 1993 to Dec 2000.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

Clinton was actually in office from Jan 1993 to Dec 2000.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Do you agree that if the attack of 9/11 had not occurred that the economy and the national debt would be in a much better position?

Yes, I do. I will admit, Bush didnt exactly have an easy time of things. I just dont think he has done as good a job as others do. However, It was his choice to go to Iraq, which, although I dont oppose, wasnt necessary IMO - at least at this time. SO I do blame part of the turmoil on him.

Repost of the correct numbers.....................

National Debt.........

09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38

However ----- Current national debt is:

09/09/2004 $7,375,299,845,541.56
- 09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
________________________
$1,701,121,635,654.70 -------------

IN 4 years! Half the time and a half a trillion dollars more!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Joey, I love the GAME ON! What a hoot.

Can't seem to get the archives to run from Jan 1992 when Clinton entered to Dec 1999 when Clinton left office but these numbers are closer to your reality. It shows more like $2 trillion under Clinton's Term.

The GAME is Really ON! LOL.

09/30/1999~~~5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998~~~5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997~~~5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996~~~5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995~~~4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994~~~4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993~~~4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992~~~4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991~~~3,665,303,351,697.03

Posted by: Joeychgo

At least now we're talking about CURRENT events, not 35 years ago when bush might have desserted, kerry might have falsified records, etc etc

Quote:

I have to do some thinking with you, Joey

Thats all I ask...........

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

At least now we're talking about CURRENT events,

We are, and Kerry needs to. I'm starting to feel sorry for him and I didn't think that would be possible. He just seems so pathetic right now. It's actually painful to watch, like a gymnast falling off the balance beam during the olympics. You might not want them to win, but you want them to do their best.

Posted by: MonsterMark

I stand corrected. I was sitting on the couch and just realized my error. My bad.
I ran to the computer hoping nobody noticed. Oh Well.

Its all Mespock's fault. If I didn;t have to run to UPS to ship his part and then pick up my kid at exactly 6:00, I could have caught the error.

Now after the computer sitting idle the last 5+ hours, I refresh the screen and see Joey posting

. You have no idea how much that hurts. I was so tempted to erase the post, but all is fair in love and war. What is done is done. A little embarrassing but i figure if I charge Mespock double, I'll get over it.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

At least now we're talking about CURRENT events, not 35 years ago when bush might have desserted, kerry might have falsified records, etc etc. Thats all I ask...........

We'll give you till next week Joey. Then the other shoe will drop on Kerry. Documentaries, etc. coming out.

And especially after this b.s. with CBS and Rather, the gloves are off. Everything is now declared fair game. And it is too bad.

Now Carville and Begala join Kerry's team and the libs claim Kerry wants to talk about the issues.

Posted by: Lincolnman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

So Lincolnman is your sidekick, eh? I'll take you both on. I have to do some thinking with you, Joey, but with your sidekick all I need is a BS flag.

At least I "m not cry baby. You quit before you sure you want to take me on?

Posted by: Lincolnman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

So Lincolnman is your sidekick, eh? I'll take you both on. I have to do some thinking with you, Joey, but with your sidekick all I need is a BS flag.

No sidekicks here. We are all equal. Oh yeah, you guys don't believe in equal.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincolnman

At least I "m not cry baby. You quit before you sure you want to take me on?

I concede that you are far more equipped to win the "I know you are but what am I" junior high level insult exchanges. You are not doing your side any favors by showing your intellect level, so by all means continue.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincolnman

No sidekicks here. We are all equal. Oh yeah, you guys don't believe in equal.

Posted by: Lincolnman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

So what is my intellect level genius?

Posted by: MonsterMark

Kerry’s Allergy to the Truth
Joan Swirsky
September 10, 2004
http://www.therant.us/staff/guest/swirsky/kerrys_allergy_to_the_truth.htm

A few years ago, I mentioned to a colleague that I had a twin brother. Since she had never heard me speak of him before, her incredulous reaction was, “No way!”

It took me about five minutes to search through some files I keep in my home until I produced both of our birth certificates and promptly made her a true believer.

Of course, I could have taken a different tack, angrily accusing her of attacking my credibility, reproaching her for even suggesting that I was making up the existence of my twin and calling her friends to insist that they stop her from spreading her doubts about my veracity.

But then again, I’m not John Kerry, to whom the simple truth seems to produce nothing less than a full-blown allergic reaction.

For instance, over the past month, Kerry has been assailed by accusations from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about the legitimacy of the two medals and three purple hearts he received during his four months in Vietnam, the accuracy of the after-action and medical-treatment reports he submitted to the Navy that ostensibly attested to their merit, and the possibly treasonous action he took following his service in which he testified before Congress about the “war crimes” both his fellow soldiers and his country committed.

It would have been so easy for Kerry to counter each accusation with the kind of hard data that would be immediately available if he simply signed Standard Form 180, allowing the Department of Defense to release the entire record from his days in Vietnam, or releasing the entire journal he kept in Vietnam (and not just self-aggrandizing tidbits as he has done so far) as well as all the film he shot in jungle reenactments of his own exploits.

Instead of taking the advice of his official biographer, Douglas Brinkley, to open up his military records to the public, Kerry – to avoid fessing up – has figuratively coughed and gasped and wheezed and sneezed around the truth, preferring to consult the Democrats’ encyclopedic “Playbook of Avoiding Accountability.” We all know the chapter headings well:

▪ Attack the messengers. As Kerry has the 254, mostly-decorated Swift Boat Vets (SBV), as well as the author of the best-selling “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” John O’Neill.

▪ Pressure the media. As Kerry has, either imploring or threatening them not to play the SBVet’s TV ads.

▪ Call in the lawyers. As Kerry has by sending his to the Federal Election Commission to have the FEC stop those big, bad Swifties.

▪ Engage in denial. As Kerry has in saying that members of his campaign staff are somehow not accountable for their close ties with numerous 527 groups – but that the solitary 527 the Swift Vets have now formed is worthy only of vilification.

▪ Lie. As Kerry has about his so-called foray into Cambodia and his first purple heart until, that is, “evidence” proved that he was lying!

▪ Deny the facts. As Kerry has by continuing to insist that those pesky empirical things are not important when propounded by the “right wing attack machine.”

And then, in a huge and revealing blunder, Kerry dispatched his surrogates to plead his case to the man he clearly considers THE AUTHORITY FIGURE in matters of judgment and power: President Bush!

With a remarkable lack of self-awareness and a desperation bordering on hysteria, he literally threw himself at the mercy of his rival, in essence saying: “This isn’t fair, Daddy, but you’re big and I’m small so you fix it!”

Without the manliness to stand on his own two feet and face his questioners head on – indeed with a timidity rivaling Caspar Milquetoast’s – he literally begged for help from his arch political enemy.

“If he groveled in front of George Bush even before the GOP convention,” said journalist Raymond S. Kraft, “how will he deal with the likes of Kim Jong Il and Osama bin Laden? They're gonna have him for breakfast!”

It looks now like those hungry terrorists will have to wait in line. And that Kerry and company may run out of their wheezing and sneezing evasions and accusations before the month is up.

Any day now, CSPAN may run the original tape of Kerry’s Congressional testimony in 1971, so that all the world can see exactly what slanderous words he used to indict the entire American armed forces and our country itself – while hundreds of thousands continued to fight in the jungles of Vietnam and others were being tortured in North Vietnam’s prison camps.

And Kerry will (or should) have to explain why he told a student newspaper at West Virginia's Bethany College in 1971:

"Our democracy is a farce; it is not the best in the world."

And Kerry will surely have to respond to the Navy’s recent decision to investigate his days in Vietnam and his anti-war activities that followed – including his meeting with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegations in Paris, while he was still a member of the Naval Reserve.

The “unr