1000 Reasons not to vote for GW

[DrewKaree]

Yep, Canada, American's friendly neighbour to the South of the US.     ....As many American's don't even know where Canada is.

Sure I do....it's just south of Mexico, between them and the South Pole

no Stem Cell Research allowed, No abortions allowed, more limitations on Free Speech, higher tax rates for the middile class, no public health care, prescriptions bought from outside the US, more assualt rifles around, higher CO2 pollution levels, higher deficts levels on the backs of your childrens childern and more religon in government.

Your reasons read like a "Why should we ignore non-'mercans when they comment on the U.S. and don't know what they're talking about".

Stem Cell Research already happens.  The argument is about the new ways folks want to get them.  Abortion is law, it won't be struck down in 4 years, only the uninformed would believe that.  No Free speech?  You've GOT to be kidding.  That alone should disqualify you from the conversation......IF there were no free speech.  Higher tax rates on the middle class?  I got my tax cut, and am decidedly lower-middle class.  When you start paying taxes in the U.S., you too will be qualified to comment!  No public health care?  You've obviously never been to our hospitals sitting amongst 20 kids with the sniffles.  Prescriptions from outside the US?  Aren't you Canadian?  SHouldn't you be thanking God we buy stuff from you, thereby increasing your economy?  Backwards reasoning, my friend.  More assault weapons?  At last, something to say "YEEHAW" about! Higher CO2?  Again, my solution...us 'Mercans will just stop breathing to satisfy the world.  Problem solved!  Higher deficits/childrens childrens...again, since you don't PAY our taxes, you couldn't possibly understand our economic system, and lastly

RELIGION IN GOVERNMENT?  Have you been sneaking mom & dad's "funny juice" again?  They are systemically booting out all traces of it, and you only need to do a quick google search for EVIDENCE of that.

[GGKoul]

How about those expos?

[shmokes]

This doesn't sound like Canada at all... it sounds more like Utah.

Hey!!!  I resent that...

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I got my tax cut, and am decidedly lower-middle class.

Did you use it to stimulate the economy? 'Cuz I don't see no difference!

[DrewKaree]

Did you use it to stimulate the economy? 'Cuz I don't see no difference!

not in MA...I figured you had a job, and I'd put my money into Evil Conservative Industries.  Clearly MA won't let them build in your area  

Yeah, my $1200 bucks was well spent....and the extra money I get in my check...well spent again.  You wanna know the best part about it all?  

The Republicans want ME to choose how my money is spent, not some politician who thinks they know how to spread it around better than I.  

A little to those "faith-based organizations" that disgust you, a little to those "little people" (that's my wife and kids) you look down your nose at, and a little to those "Rich businesses" you say are robbing money from the "less fortunate".....heaven forbid they keep their doors open and employ people.  Or are you now FOR sending jobs overseas?

[DrewKaree]

How about those expos?

mebbe if they weren't from Canada, they'd be good.  

"How about the North Dominican Republic" would have been more accurate.












Only you Bengals fans'll get dis one (unless you're just a plain football nut.


WHODEY?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Or are you now FOR sending jobs overseas?

No. Not like your president* and his party. Example: It has just recently been discovered that the Republican Voter Vault was put together in India, while the Democrats did their work on Demzilla (their database) in the good ol' U S of A.

*Funny that you have such a problem with offshoring, yet you support one of the most egregious abusers of job exports [Bush]. A vote to help Bush keep his job, is a vote to send yours overseas. Kerry has promised to close loopholes that benefit companies that take jobs away from American families.

[DrewKaree]

*Funny that you have such a problem with offshoring, yet you support one of the most egregious abusers of job exports [Bush]. A vote to help Bush keep his job, is a vote to send yours overseas. Kerry has promised to close loopholes that benefit companies that take jobs away from American families.

what's not funny is your continued refusal to look at facts....you know, those pesky things needed to give your accusations substance, rather than just some bitter judgements fueled by hatred.

It's simple.

click here for the facts regarding MrC's blatant lies

This link is for another ignorant "fact" regarding the terrible economy and how it's affecting our jobs

Yet more information on our "terrible economy"

Some about Kerry's spurious job creation and how he's responsible for 'em


Funny how a web site that specifically looks to point out errors (screw it, it's a lie, not an error) can make such mincemeat of your lies about Bush being "the most egregious abuser of job exports".  

I'd ask you to back up your claims with a bit more than an article from PC World, but I won't ever hold my breath.  I'd ask you to hold yours, but you seem to be getting redder in the face by the day.  

Any chance you might stop spewing outright lies, or are you becoming that which you decried not too long ago?

[DrewKaree]

edit: damn you drew, and your multiple quotes!! i just can't get this one lookin right...

it ain't eezy bein' cheezy  

[mr.Curmudgeon]

what's not funny is your continued refusal to look at facts....

Your Linkfest[size=-2](tm)[/size], once again, neither proves nor disproves anything. BTW, don't let the name "FactCheck.org" fool you. It's a crappy website that is just as prone to bias as any other and it doesn't help your cause. However, interesting that you should mention facts...

FACT:  The economy has lost 3.1 million private sector jobs since President Bush took office, a job loss rate of 108,000 per month. Worst since Herbert Hoover. But don't worry...I know it's all Clinton's fault.

Wake me when Bush gets those job numbers back to where they were before his dumb ass took office. That's improvement. You guys pat yourselves on the back the moment you see Bush walk and chew gum at the same time and you act like he's walking on water while doing it.

Here's another fact for you:
The Lone Star Iconoclast, local newspaper of Crawford, Texas, switches sides and endorses Kerry for president. This guy can't even win over the dinky little town he's so proud of...maybe they see him for the blue blood he truly is. Him and his fake hillbilly accent, all hat, no cattle.

My favorite part:"We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a

[shmokes]

Fredster,

I don't just think Kerry's going to lose because things aren't going our way.   I think that Kerry and the democrats deserve to lose.  They've sucked at framing issues.  George Bush has been able to trick the general public into believing that there is a link between Iraq and Al Queida.  And that's just one issue.  When we see him on his off time he's in a plaid shirt with his dog, out on the ranch, working.  We know it's for show.  He has hired help that does all the work on the ranch, of course.  But when Kerry takes a break, and he knows that media will be everywhere, he goes wind surfing or to an exclusive private ski resort in Idaho.  

Bush will win because he knows (or at least Karl Rove knows, but I give Bush credit too) how to run a campaign.  It's not just polls that make me think Kerry will lose; it's the fact that Kerry doesn't know what he's doing and Bush does.  

Sad.

[DrewKaree]

From my first link

Summary

A Kerry ad released July 20 returns to a theme he and his Democratic allies have been pushing for months: a claim that tax incentives to locate jobs overseas is a big problem that is Bush's fault and that Kerry promises to fix.

Kerry's latest ad -- all positive -- paints his tax fix as the centerpiece of a plan to create jobs -- the "lifeline for America's families." The negative side, blaming Bush, has been seen earlier in ads such as a Media Fund spot first aired last March saying "Bush's policies have encouraged the loss of nearly 3 million jobs" and "he supported tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas."

But recent Labor Department data underscore what even Democratic economists have said for some time -- outsourcing jobs overseas, or "offshoring," accounts for just a small fraction of the many millions of jobs that are lost each year even in a good economy.

There is indeed a tax break for US-based multinational corporations to locate operations overseas. Bush isn't to blame for it -- it's been there for decades. It's also true that Bush doesn't support Kerry's proposed remedy, which is controversial.

But even backers of the Kerry plan concede that eliminating the tax break won't end the offshoring of some US jobs. Multinational businesses build plants in other countries to take advantage of lower wages and to be near their global customers, too, not just for tax reasons.
Analysis

Economic analysts say offshoring is a fairly small problem, and Kerry's tax proposal won't do much to solve it.

So make of that what you will, but when you paint Bush as the "most egregious abuser", you're wrong, and the story goes on to point out that even Democrats don't agree that Kerry's plan is the solution.  

Would you like several stories of Democrats who have switched their allegiance to Kerry, or several news stories who believe Kerry won't win?  It's all the same to you...."lies" that don't prove one way or the other that blind allegiance to the man whose chief plan is "to do it better than the current administration" ISN'T the way to go.

As for "my crappy website", it's the only one anyone's posted in any thread that has continued to poke holes in both sides - the ads they run, the claims they make....you'd like everyone to believe they should be flippantly dismissed, but even a casual observation of their site shows my statement to be true.  Your main problem is that you don't like ANY website that might shed light on your lies.

And you prattle on about goosestepping

Blind hatred must be a bear to get over.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Drew,

I read that article and it just doesn't offer much. Kerry plan is a step in the right direction, and your article would even seem to support that (ie: "wouldn't do *much*"...but it would do something, right? Bush has done nothing!). Offshoring accounts for a small portion of jobs lost...so what...should be just keep sending jobs overseas then, let's make it really count!! These numbers have continued to grow under Bush and I bet that once Kerry is in office, we'll get the real numbers on the economy under Bush, and it won't be pretty. Everything we get from this White House is tainted, extrapolated and exaggerated. Fuzzy Math 101 is a Republican prerequisite.

Sure there's political spin involved in what Kerry says, but don't act like Bush is honest abe either. Bush lost 3.1 million jobs...if they didn't go overshore (which I don't believe they all did), where did they go? I certainly don't expect you to hold him accountable, I mean, Clinton did get a blowjob after all, but is it so hard for you to understand how those of us who do think he's responsible balk at the idea of clapping for a measley 130,000 jobs here, 112,000 jobs there?

Bottom line, I may be blinded by hate when it comes to Bush...but you seem to be blinded by sympathy for that sorry excuse for a president. Don't be an apologist, I know you can do better than that.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

One more thing...I may just disappear from these political threads again, for a while. It's not that I don't like them   , it's just that I'd rather be out there helping the Kerry campaign in ways that really matter. Nobody here is going to change, but I've been working to make a difference in New Hampsire, Ohio and Michigan (my home state).

So far, much more rewarding than posting links and making fun of Bush. (Although that is fun!)

[Mameotron]

How about those expos?

You mean the Washington, D.C. Expos?  I think they will suck.

[DrewKaree]

I've been working to make a difference in New Hampsire, Ohio and Michigan (my home state).

So we should look for stories of voter fraud in those three states?  Your work IS showing up in Ohio, I've seen.

Nothing in MA, hey?  They've already got the votes locked up or are there enough absentee ballots coming to negate any conservative votes?

I hope they school you in the legalities of voter registration, but somehow, I doubt that's low on the list in those states, at least within the circles you assist.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

No such thing as voter fraud...

[DrewKaree]

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever HE shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, WHENEVER HE MAY CHOOSE TO SAY he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix ANY LIMIT to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."  

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that NO ONE MAN should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

the world needs you, honest Abe.

danny, I think we all see where you're angling with this post.  The problem is, Ol' Abe's process is the way we went about it.  So if you feel the world needs him back, then you are saying you agree with the process and where it's led us to currently, right?

[fredster]

MrC -

One more thing...I may just disappear from these political threads again, for a while...I'd rather be out there helping the Kerry campaign in ways that really matte

Ahhh. Well, I guess somebody has to rub the tanning oil on The Senator.

Danny-

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated

That's how we did it.  Nice take on our system. It was no ONE man.  See, there are 435 members in one house and 100 in the other that voted for a war in Iraq.  Including Kerry.

Honest Abe was a Republican.

Shmokes has it right about the desolution of the Union.  I suppose it could be done if Everybody agreed.  At this point in time we would only allow California to leave.

And also Shmokes and I agree on this -

it's the fact that Kerry doesn't know what he's doing and Bush does.  

 Well said, well said  

(That last quote was taken horribly out of Context because I know Shmokes has a wonderful sense of Humor)

[GGKoul]

If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."  

Or the president can say the "Canada has WMD" and use that as his excuse to attack Canada, even though UN inspector's said there was no WMD.

[DrewKaree]

At this point in time we would only allow California to leave.

I'd let MA leave too, but only if they take MrK(or C...they're interchangeable)

[DrewKaree]

Or the president can say the "Canada has WMD" and use that as his excuse to attack Canada, even though UN inspector's said there was no WMD.

Women Masquerading as Dirigiibles?

True enough, I WOULD support attacking them...HoHo's and DingDongs until they explode!

Forget about all that pesky "every country with an intelligence agency (including France) convinced they had them".  The inspectors that Sadaam showed what and when he wanted them to see....they were the ones  who "knew" best.  

[fredster]

GGKoul,

Or the president can say the "Canada has WMD" and use that as his excuse to attack Canada, even though UN inspector's said there was no WMD.

No, that's wrong and you know it's wrong.  There was a proceedure that took over a year to complete in order to direct the war machine on Iraq. It wasn't as if Bush said "jump" and everybody said "how high".

The president on his own cannot attack anybody.  Only the congress can declare war.  

People seem to confuse facts with opinions and outright fallacies in election seasons.

To say that the Congress just rubber stamps whatever the President says is absolutely wrong.  There were stump speaches by over 550 statesmen about this issue for several months in the US.  Similar debate took place in the UK and all over the world.  

Does the UK rubber stamp what Bush said too?  Is Bush now the leader of more than the US?

Tony Blair also said the same thing.  Austrailia was with us, so were about 37 other countries.  To say it was unilateral action kinda ignores the rest of the coalition.  Just because Canada, France, and Germany didn't join doesn't mean the US went at this alone.

And just because Canada, France and Germany didn't participate in no means makes our actions wrong.  

BTW, does Canada have a large stash of WMD?  Have you shown them to the UN?  Do you plan on taking on any of your bordering countries?  Are you harboring terrorists or setting up training camps?  Do you have mass graves of people that have been killed by your government?

[Dartful Dodger]

GGKoul,

Fredster, he can't understand, he's Canadian.

[fredster]

Reason no 1000: If you really hate America and you want the Islamic Fundamentalists to take over, don't vote for GWB.

[GGKoul]

Does the UK rubber stamp what Bush said too?  Is Bush now the leader of more than the US?

Tony Blair also said the same thing.  Austrailia was with us, so were about 37 other countries.  To say it was unilateral action kinda ignores the rest of the coalition.  Just because Canada, France, and Germany didn't join doesn't mean the US went at this alone.

I have a feeling if UK & Australia knew what they know today, they wouldn't have joined the US in invading Iraq.

[Dartful Dodger]

I have a feeling if UK & Australia knew what they know today, they wouldn't have joined the US in invading Iraq.

Godd thing they didn't, now they're on the winning team.
The UN is a joke, put a fork in it, it's done.

[GGKoul]

I have a feeling if UK & Australia knew what they know today, they wouldn't have joined the US in invading Iraq.

Godd thing they didn't, now they're on the winning team.
The UN is a joke, put a fork in it, it's done.

It's easy to win when you attack one of the poorest countries in the world.

[Dartful Dodger]

I have a feeling if UK & Australia knew what they know today, they wouldn't have joined the US in invading Iraq.

Godd thing they didn't, now they're on the winning team.
The UN is a joke, put a fork in it, it's done.

It's easy to win when you attack one of the poorest countries in the world.

I'm talking about the UN and being part of a united front that actually works.

[Mameotron]

http://www.pollingreport.com/

It's getting SO close now!!  Can it be possible that this election will be more exciting than the last?  Too late to urge everyone to register, so I'll just say, everyone please vote!  You DO make a difference (don't start with that electoral college crap)!!

[GGKoul]

what the hell is the electoral college?

It's an American thing... Each state is given X amount of points.  And if someone has 1 vote more the next, they win the state and X amount of points.  And someone needs X (270?) amount of points to win the election.  

So, someone who has more actual votes can lose the election, as they didn't win the electoral vote.  Just like what happened in 2000, Gore had more votes, but Bush won cause he had more electoral points.  

[Dartful Dodger]

what the hell is the electoral college?

It's an American thing... Each state is given X amount of points.  And if someone has 1 vote more the next, they win the state and X amount of points.  And someone needs X (270?) amount of points to win the election.  

So, someone who has more actual votes can lose the election, as they didn't will the electoral vote.  Just like what happened in 2000, Gore had more votes, but Bush won cause he had more electoral points.  

Bush didn't just win, we all won that year.

[fredster]

The electoral college is designed to offset the urban or highly populace areas from the rest of the country.  That was the issue in Fla.  Fla had 25 electorial votes.  It takes what, about 270 to win the presidency.  25 is almost 10% of the way.

Each state is assigned a number of electorial votes based on population. If a person wins 50.001% of the vote, he gets all of the electorial votes for the state.  Winner take all per state.

If a president won only by the popular vote, he would only have to campaign in about 1/3 of the country and appeal to them.  The rest of the country's vote would be worthless.  New York and LA would define the course of the nation.  Without the electorial college the whole voting landscape would change.  Eventually ONLY the 1/3 would vote.

[Mameotron]

I really should clarify my "electoral college crap" remark.  I do think it is a good idea, for all the reasons fredster just pointed out.

What I meant was, don't start whining that I'm a democrat that lives in a republican state, Bush is gonna take the state, my vote doesn't count, waah waah waah....

[DYNAGOD]

the electoral college is a complete friggin farce, and should be removed post haste..it is not a good idea, never was and never will be..its a crime..a crime against the foundation of our constitution..
last time i checked a vote means we all put our vote in a hat, count em up and whomever has the most votes wins..
thats whats a REAL election is...
the founders of this nation never intended for the notion of an election to be anything more than that....the number of people in a state , and it size are irrelevant..WE ARE ALL AMERICANS!
points?? what the hell is this a video game? this is our nations election! an election that appoints someone whom is quite possibly to become the most powerful leader on the planet earth.. i want our votes counted,a winner announced by volume, and beyond that nothing more..
what possible reason could there be for it to be any other way,except corruption ,in the most literal sense of the word..

[fredster]

DynaGod,

I guess by "friggin farce" you disagree with it.

It has been debated for 100 years.  The reason is to prevent large population centers controlling politics for the rest of the states.  

It's brilliant, like the rest of the constitution.

How can you even think it could be corrupted.  It was designed to keep corruption out of the system and balance it out.

Didn't you pass "government" in HS? It was a well thought out way to keep all of the people treated fairly.

We only hear this clap trap when Liberals lose.

[DYNAGOD]

 

The reason is to prevent large population centers controlling politics for the rest of the states.

ummm, do you realize what you are even saying?
we are all Americans! how can you balance out an absolute majority?

So,
in a classroom full of 50 kids..
if 15 of them vote for oranges,and 35 vote for apples.
everyone should get oranges becuase the 15 who voted for them were fatter than the 35 who voted for apples..
thats absurd!!

everyone vote should be equal..and not squelched by the imaginary geographic boundaries and demographic size of their state.im personally offended to think that the elctoral college system lessens the importance of my vote over that of someone in another state..

and NO...since you must know.. we didnt have goverment in my JH or HS school cause there were no books to be had. we had to share ancient out of date books with two other schools in the city and we rotated them by semester..
i went to one of the poorest,underfunded public school systems in america in the eighties.. but somehow i managed to become a design engineer despite all that..and  my education has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with a flawed misinterpretation of the constitution..whats right is right and whats wrong is wrong..
even a dog knows not to eat his own balls..

[spocktwin]

   Dynagod it sounds even though you had a bad situation to start out that you did learn something.  I think you need to study the electoral college setup.  It really is a thing of brillance for all the reasons fredster pointed out in his post.  Take a deep breath, think about it and you will find the thinking behind it.  At first blush is does seem kind of wrong but if you look at all the nuances it does make sense........just my two cents!

[DYNAGOD]

im not upset at all,im just full of conviction

looking at fredsters post illluminates nothing for me..

 

The electoral college is designed to offset the urban or highly populace areas from the rest of the country.

Why?  
during an election there should be no boundaries, no borders and no segregation..for that one day the voices of all americans are to be heard,tallied  and the majority spoken for...  breaking it down by states and cities is fine for statistical analysis, but above and beyond that it has no merit and should certainly have no effect on the outcome of an election.

he elaborated by using the following example.

If a president won only by the popular vote, he would only have to campaign in about 1/3 of the country and appeal to them.  The rest of the country's vote would be worthless.

if a president won by the popular vote your saying that only states with the largest population would be  on the campaign trail during the next election period becuase those states alone apparently have the greatest number of popular votes.. and just how does that differ form the electoral system with its "swing" states. it simply strips the individual of his vote..its the same vice with a different name.
and to say that the rest of the peoples votes would be worthless is a mighty bold statement.

now,somehwat contradictory to the first stement..

Fla had 25 electorial votes.  It takes what, about 270 to win the presidency.  25 is almost 10% of the way.

if floridas population still controls 10% of the vote even under the electoral system ,then obviously they are still going to pander to that state..
so theres fundamentally no difference...
other than to make the votes of the individual mute.
your actually giving states with larger populations MORE influence,not less..as the system is meant to do..

its fundamentally flawed..
no single state should be the swing..a single vote should..

[spocktwin]

But as you can find in some elections the winner did not necessarily have all the big states but a collection of the smaller ones.  We all want to believe as Americans that we are all the same but we are not.  The wants and need of a farming family in Iowa can be very different then that of a inner city family or for that matter different then rural Ohio (a swing state).  We all need to make sure that our states are equally represented.  
     Some of our larger cities have more population then some entire states,,,,,,should policy be dictated by the needs of the bigger cities, no!   Policy needs to be implemented for the good of all.
    I don't mean this to sound like a slam down but you have a very limited view of the popular vote and you are not seeing the forest because of the trees.