...to bash him?
I searched for the other candidates and didn't find much....who do you think will be next president? Kerry or Nader?

__________________

Well not to really bash him......to prove how dumb he actually is....


Haha, Nader won't...and I dunno if Kerry will either.

__________________

i hope kerry doesnt win, bush is FAR from the best pres we ever had but i cant stand kerry, all he ever talkes about is his stupid tours in vietnam


mr kerry what are you going to do about the war on terrerism

"well when i was vietnam we talked a great deal about terrerism...."

__________________

^ Sarcasim??

FUNNAY!

__________________

no im dead serious i cant stand kerry

__________________

SARCASIM??

FUNNAY!

__________________

dumbass

__________________

Yeah, good call. After all, when a guy talks too much about stuff he's done, obviously he isn't worth as a president, even if you ARE replacing the WORST PRESIDENT EVER. After all, dude, he talks to much about Vietnam! How could somebody that horrendous even be CONSIDERED to run the country!? I'd much rather have somebody who doesn't know the difference between the words "prosecute" and "persecute" as president than somebody who TALKS TO MUCH ABOUT BEING IN VIETNAM! Kerry talks about Vietnam too much to know anything about NUKULER bombs like Bush does.

No president in the next 50 years will be able to fix our $5 trillion deficit. We'll be fucked for quite a while. Are those the only guys running?!?!?!?! Holy shit, America has died...

__________________

While Bush has been in office, America spends $400billion more each year than it actually earns, I believe. That's quite an incredible statistic and if I were American I wouldn't vote for somebody who is quite happy for that situation to prevail. Maybe he doesn't understand what it means, afterall, somebody who thinks that the French have no word for entrepeneur can only be considered to be at the same evolutionary level as a grape.

__________________

You think that if Kerr is elected instead of Bush
there will be a difference?

__________________

Well if Bush is Pres. again, we WILL go bankrupt. Then we'd turn into one of those african dictatorships or something. Hell, we're going bankrupt already. But these statistics are almost scary...:
We only have 3 friends at the U.N.
We have a 4.5(?)trillion deficit
There were no WOMass Destruction ever found
Bush is spending ALL our tax money on fucking war against a ghost...it'll never end until Bush I hope becomes dead.

__________________

Kill Bush, Kill Cheney...and bow to ME! KING OF THE EARTH!!

It's the only logical solution.


"can only be considered to be at the same evolutionary level as a grape."

I giggled at that.

__________________

damn, were screwed..

__________________

No, you are screwed, the rest are fine.


EDIT: Oh, and BLS will be assigned the mission to reach the earth's core with a shovel and hardhat.

__________________

I tried that once.. DIDNT WORK!

__________________

But did you try it......FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE?!

__________________

More than half of america is retarded though..

we dunt need make no sense!

__________________

http://costofwar.com/




And your not gonna vote?

__________________

Not only is Bush doing some of the worst things to this country (and world) since it's history, but he doesn't seem to be doing anything right, either.

Remember, this is the man who as governer of Texas was responsible for taking Henry Lee Lucas off of death row.

As good as Kerry is, it wouldn't matter if he were no good at all. Having a bad president would be leaps and bounds better than having a Bush president. Every power in the world eventually turns into chaos, and if Bush is allowed to rule this country for another four years, that chaos would be a hell of a lot closer than it should be. I'd rather face another ice age than another Bush term.

Yes! Look at this webring
http://o.webring.com/hub?ring=inmate


people bush has killed (before the war )

__________________

What is everyone's view on Deathrow? I know it's a bad thing to kill someone that has killed, i'd say they don't deserve to live anymore either, but isn't jail punishment enough? I can't decide of my view; I like it, and yet I don't. But killing innocent people.....

__________________

Ah well, lets try not to stray off topic hear. But this is what I believe:

1.) Two wrongs do not make a right
2.) The goverment does not have the right to play the role of God or a god
3.) If the goverment can "legally" kill some one then that entitles them to "legally" steal, ect.
4.) The US goverment was founded and is ran on a Juedo-Christian ethical system in which it would mean that it would be hypocrital to put someone to death.
5.) States that have had the death penalty and now don't do not show a higher crime rate, same vice versa.
6.) If crimes are premeditated (inwhich they usually are) then death penalty or not the person will most likely go through with it. Criminals have the thought that they can beat the system.
7.) Its a risk that you can put a innocent man to death.
8.) People complain "it cost to much money to keep someone in jail" when really it can cost almost as much on deathrow due to the 20+ years spent on it, the forumla to kill them, ect.

Alot of people say: "Well if someone killed your family you would want them to die!". Not true for me. Sure I'd be morbidly upset but I think a life term in prison is more of a punishment than a quick oneway ticket out of here. And there is such thing as forgiveness.

But anyway!

__________________

seems like it's on topic to me..."political mayhem" thread being about the govt., it may be a little general, but I see what you're saying.

__________________

Yeah this thread is made to be pretty general. Darko had some really good points...perhaps torturing them more would suffice.(well to the worser cases, like a child molester killer, ect.)

__________________

Haha, then big daddy warden will fuck YOUR ass.

__________________

NO.

__________________

No what?

__________________

No Torture.

__________________

Yeah, torture would be to barbaric much like the death penalty. But this actually wouldn't be a bad idea to kind of make this "RTT" for Political issues.

__________________

You're the forum mod, not us, so changing the title to that would be by your hand.

__________________

the death penalty does cost to much, they should just go back to the good ol' days of public hangings

now this is fucked up, they steralize the needle free of diseases and shit just to kill the guy with it where the hells the sence in that!?

__________________

yeah, that's funny. don't want them to get aids.

Good points darko.
The major problem is torture, death, etc. happening to an innocent man. Maybe someone the government, police, don't like. Too risky.

__________________

capital punushment is a pretty extreme thing, there are 2 sides to the argument, darko covered most of the cons, but really the thing is, here in Aust. it costs taxpayers about 20,000 per inmate per year to keep them in jail, and some of them wont get out, or ever be any use to society, so what is the point in keeping them alive to take up money that could be spent of better state infrastructure and other public goods. If it can be established without a doubt that they are guilty of monstrous behavior then why should they be supported by the society that they wronged? i feel that capital punishment can be a good thing, but shouldn't be the first option considered to be used as punishment.


that reads alot like a persuasive english essay .............

__________________

And my hand fro bro.

__________________

Capital punishment is ridiculous, but there are far more important things to worry about right now. As far as capital punishment goes, here's how I feel-

1. It's hypocritical
2. It allows Judeo-Christianity to keep a hold over our laws, despite the seperation of church and state
3. I'd rather get a one-way ticket out of this world than to have to spend to life a full life deprived of my freedom (so obviously the death penalty is nothing more than a slap on the wrist to these criminals)

There are obviously large differences in the quality of prisons in this country. Most are rather humane institutions, some are rather barbaric. I think it would be more interesting if perhaps our worst offenders (including those who are likely to re-offend if they are to be released) could be sent the worst prisons. It will never, EVER happen, but I think it's at the very least an interesting idea.

Jail is a joke anyway.
Think of the logic. Someone steals something. They put him in jail. He get's free food, lodging,etc. And learns nothing.
We need to devise a new idea for criminals. Of course jail is a good idea for diddlers, murderers and that degree. But theives, drug users, etc.? Make them work it off. Letting them sit in a cell surrounded by other "bad seeds" teaches them nothing but other ways to steal.

Jail the murderers, fuck the drug users (it's their fucking body) HELP them not incarcerate them, and make the other "low" crimes, (thieves etc) work their fucking asses off in shit fucking jobs.
I'm serious, a bunch of my friends have been in and out of jail, and it's a fuckign joke to them. Time off from society. They've got dope, smokes, beer, and everything they want (cept women). But you make the fuckers work and that'll teach em something.

Then bring in the arguement about prison breeding criminals. You put a man in jail for selling a pound of weed. Someone tries to rape him, he commits murder, now he has gone from a dealer to a murderer. Prison doesn't help people, it hardens them.





So just kill em and you can have that new wal-mart?

__________________

Prision is convinement with a bunch of males..

i think its plenty punishment

__________________

man, it's like being 13 again. You hang out with your friends and dream of one day getting laid.
The movies are one thing, reality is another.

__________________

You definitely make some excellent points, but you have to keep in mind that there are still very bad prisons out there. There aren't nearly as many as there used to be (they used to be all horrendous), but there are still some real shit boxes. You also have to take into consideration most of these friends that are in and out are likely doing time in small-time correctional facilities, which in reality aren't nearly as bad as a real prison. I know a guy who did a year in Leavenworth in the 80's and is now in a county correctional center. They are incomparable.

I do want to reiterate that you have several good points, especially regarding thieves and drug addicts. As much as I hate the whole illegal drug situation, there's nothing you can really do about it. I do feel that dealers of harder drugs (meth, crack, heroin, etc.) should do some serious time when you look at all the negative effect it has, especially when you consider many addicts are sucked in when they are immature kids incapable of making perfectly rational decisions. It ruins their lives and hurts the lives of everybody around them. I live in a drug infested shithole of a city and I see it every single day. I've known more heroin addicts than you would believe. Many of them realize they are addicted and just don't have what it takes to fight it. Sometimes a 3 month trip to the county jail can help, but it usually doesn't, so I'd have to agree with you. Just let them fuck themselves up. If the government were doing a better job of getting the drugs off the streets and locking up the big dealers, then the problem would fix itself.

we dont have wal-marts here to begin with, but shopping centers and that sort of thing is a privately owned thing, publicly owned things are stuff like roads, parks, and all that sort of thing.
What i feel is that capital punishment should only be used in extreme situations, if someone has the posibility of any kind of rehabilitation then, they could still be usefull to society (as anybody who works or learns is useful to society), however those who are likely to recommit excessive crimes and are never likey to get out of incarsaration are simply a hinderance on society, thus why should society look after them untill they die in prision? Some instances i can think of that have happened fairly recently here in Aus, is someone was convicted of raping and murdering 3 women, he had no remorse for his actions, he was a about 50, (from what i remember) he will probably never get out of jail alive, yet we have to pay for him to sit around waiting to die?
There was another person a couple of years ago who was the leader of a gang, who gang raped arund 20 women, he got something like 50 years inprisionment, (which is REALLY harsh here in australia), so now e will be in jail untill he is about 80, doing NOTHING to aid the community who have to pay for him to sit there thinking about what he has done. Its in these circumstances that i feel that capital punishment would be a better way of handling these sorts of people, not petty drug dealers or thiefs.

__________________

You're forgetting 2 gigantic points: Community service and pathetically large fines. A friend of mine was arrested for possession of Marijuana and she was jailed and fined $30,000. That's how much it seriously is here in Texas. It gets worked off through community service, collateral(on like car/house or something), and out of your pocket for the next zillion years.

__________________

Yeah but is she still smoking it? Most consequences don't even matter to some people. One of the "highs" from doing drugs is the fact your getting away with something illegal.

__________________

She definately stopped.

__________________

Man, the states marijuana laws are fucking ridiculous.
There's a guy in jail right now for something like 15 years for a fucking seed in his pocket. His name is mark something. I'll dig up the info if you want it.

Your correct chris, the jails my friends have been in are mostly hotels with bars. In a way that sways towards my other arguement. How putting People in jail is just contributing to thier demise.
You are a product of your environment.

__________________

HAHAHA, if they catch you here they inhale it deeeeeeeply.

HAHA

__________________

To get back with the original topic for a bit, most Americans are ridiculously ignorant about the facts and key issues. Perhaps I should have used the word "uninformed", but they mean the same thing, uninformed just sounds more polite. Fuck that, there's no need to be polite.

People are easily tricked by officials into what the key issues are. If you notice, for years the big huge thing was welfare. Many politicians (especially Republicans) pimped out this whole platform based around welfare reform, trying to sway voters. It worked on many occasions, and people today still complain about it and talk of the need for reform. Here's in interesting fact-
in 1992, only 23% of voters knew that more money was spent on the military than was spent on welfare. To be exact, at that point, 1.4% of the budget (less than one percent now) went to welfare and 44% (much more than that now) went to the military.

For the numbers to be that hugely different, and people STILL think that more money went to welfare than the military says a lot of the true ignorance of most American voters. This isn't intended to be a discussion on welfare or whether or not it needs reform (which it doesn't), that's the least of our worries right now, it's more to point out how uneducated people truly are about the facts.

Right now, most people are disinterested with that deal and so politicians have all jumped on the terrorism bandwagon. Why? Because people are terrified of terrorism, and anything that conjures up a strong emotion is something that politicians are going to try to use to their advantage. In fact, Dick(head) Cheney said at the Republican National Convention if Kerry is elected, America would be attacked again. That's one the most ridiculous things that anybody had said in a while. How could you insinuate that terrorists would be more keen to attack because of a different president? The funny thing is, even some republicans knew that was an idiotic thing to say. I have a (conservative) news station (a Fox station) that features a fat Republican who spews garbage about how great Bush is all day long. I'm not sure how this is considered NEWS, but he's not an anchor, and he has a special title. Fact is, even he admitted that what Cheney said is stupid.

The fact is politicians don't let facts get in the way of an argument because they know people are unaware of the real facts. They also know no matter how hard anybody tries to inform people of the facts, the facts will still be ignored. It really makes you sick when you realize how stupid and/or ignorant the majority of people really are.

You wanna know how to solve that welfare problem? It requires NO experience, and all benifits. You get a ton of money, and all you need to be is just a little athletic. JOIN THE MILLITARY. You even get a thousand dollars just for joining.

__________________

The funny thing here is that seeds(and in the
rest of Europe I think) are legal to possess!
Also they sell big rolling papers,what the hell
would you use them for if not for marijuana?
Fucking hypocrites!

__________________

Marijuana is illegal.

Not a hard concept to grasp, that retard should read up on the States laws.. oh wait he was porbably to busy getting high

__________________

The hall was packed and the intake of breath was audible as a special announcement was made to the war widows of the West Bank - Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people.

The men at the top table then opened Saddam's chequebook and, as the names of 47 martyrs were called, family representatives went up to sign for cheques written in US dollars.

Now if thats not supporting terrorism...what is...
Fact of the matter is bush got handed a shitty ecomny from clinton...
Clinton had several chances to actually have Bin Laden handed over to the us and declined...
I think no one out side of the inner government has any idea whats even actually going on...
The econmy is on a steady rise....

If u dont know who to vote for take a look at john kerrys senate record...hes full of shit ...

...and bls you can't get high off a fucking seed. There's no justification for idiocy.

Attached Images

	bush1.gif (10.8 KB, 82 views)
	bush2.gif (11.6 KB, 75 views)
	bush3.gif (10.0 KB, 79 views)
	bush4.gif (11.5 KB, 82 views)

__________________

heed the advice of the naked women!

Attached Images

pod.jpg (20.0 KB, 90 views)

__________________

Haha, that makes it look like they kinda evened things out for each other...

__________________

Don't waste facts. I love people who blame the Bush economy on Clinton. I wish I could do that when I fucked up.

If you don't know who to vote for, chances are you've noticed that both candidates are cunts, with one major difference:

Kerry: a cunt with no discernible plan of action and no real ideas.
Bush: a cunt with a terrible fucking plan of action and ideas that make me wake up shrieking like a Mengele subject. Or somebody having his perineum done over with a cheesegrater. Or like a little boy finding out the hard way what 'NAMBLA' stands for. I leave the choice of what the shriek's like to you.

Democrats have no idea who they are, and neither do we, except that they aren't Bush. Which is a fine recommendation, sure, but do you really want to vote for somebody whose only discernible character trait is not being somebody else? Fuck it, that's the only choice. The choice between hot, drizzling shit and the cold shit that didn't flush properly.

Also, anti-drug laws, being as they were made to protect society from people and people from themselves and go after the nasty fuckers who play symbiotic castration with the junk sick and coke jonesers - not to mention who commit a fair deal of the violent crimes we can't have in our fucking society, now can we? - and who aren't above shipping off a bad customer with a hot shot, have little business coming down so hard on an unsmokable form of what's probably the most harmless and non-addicting drugs you can put in you. It might make sense if they went after alcohol, too - and if they do I'm leaving the country - since it's, you know, apt to make people violent assholes who do things like accidentally beat their longtime girlfriends to death, or drive over a bunch of kids crossing the street. Not to mention cigarettes, 'cause those kill millions of blah blah blah. But they don't. Now, I understand they can grow that seed into intent to sell - imagine all the pot he might have forced on our poor children had he had the chance to grow it! Oh, the horror! - but it's maybe the most inefficient way to fight the war on drugs. Not to mention idiotic. Especially since I know they just sit on much bigger dealers (and it's not hard to be much bigger than some fuck with a seed in his pocket) and do fuck-all to stop or arrest them.

But all that said, yeah, you gotta know the laws. They're there to begin with and they're fun and easy to play with.

Let's all throw our vote away on our third party candidates then,



......



...Nader...?

__________________

No, I was supporting the shit choice. You might as well not vote if you're going to vote for a third party, especially since you do it with no hope of winning, only hoping to increase the party's funding. And I'll be damned if you should be increasing anybody's funding. I'm just saying, even if you do it, just don't like it, and always call it what it is.

Bill Cosby would be a decent president. I mean, hes hilarious and just look how well he governed his kids on his show!

__________________

ive said it once, ill say it again

CPUSA!!!

http://www.cpusa.org/

__________________

...I'm being abso-fucking-lutely serious.....should I not vote this year? ...because I've been to many sites about the 3 canidates(nader, bush, Kerry) and by god I can't say....

__________________

Usually I wouldn't say, but since you're asking admitted inveterate drunks on a metal forum whether or not you should vote, it sounds to me like your voice is the one that shouldn't be heard. Just choose a monkey and go. Stop weighing all the options like this is something important like thoroughbred racing.

Regardless, I might not have voted anyways. Just thought I'd ask though.

__________________

Saddam did say that. Unfortunately, you are highly misinformed, as the country the martyrs would have been attacking would have been Israel. We don't need to get into everybody else's business. Israel could beat the shit out of Iraq by themselves if they wanted to, and it THEIR problem, not ours. Why don't you bother pointing out the facts?

The economy was in a GREAT state when Clinton handed it over, fact is, he FIXED the economy and helped whittle down that HUGE fucking deficit that Bush sr. and Reagan left us in. So why don't you show me some links that point to how exactly Clinton fucked up the economy, because I would REALLY love to see it. I'm 100% you can't, because I am 100% sure you are wrong.

What exactly is wrong with Kerry's senate record? Certainly nothing worse than Bush's record in Texas, or even worse, with the WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRY!

Let's look at REAL facts, not fiction that you indiscriminately spew on a message board.

Links to actual FACTS (a dirty word around here, isn't it?)

Clinton and the economy/deficit
http://www.pitt.edu/~zander/PS0210.html

Bush destroying environment
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS...lumn.billpress/
http://www.whywehatebush.com/news/04_07_epa.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4836629/
http://www.cpe-sf.com/ruthgroup/dow...ks/Mainpage.htm

Bush destroying medicare
http://home.earthlink.net/~acisney/id194.html

Why should we care about medicare? Because we will be old someday. Why should we care about the environment? I guess we shouldn't, unless it matters to you if the world exists or not, then it would be very important.

Don't forget to point out that the only reason people can claim the economy's on a steady rise is because the released facts are things like number of jobs, which are very misleading and don't actually mean the economy's any better.

Speaking of misleading, senate records are always misleading. Someone's bound to've voted either for something stupid that was tacked onto a good bill, or against something good that was tacked onto a stupid bill, and the record, when it's brought up, will only point out that he voted for something stupid or against something good. It's cheap and stupid but it works because people don't understand how much you have to compromise to get a damn thing done in the Senate.

Also: I'm not a big fan of Kerry. But Bush is such a monstrous cunt it shouldn't be an issue. He doesn't even actually do things that Republicans should be for. Republicans are supposed to be the small government, small spending people, and he's out spending like a drunk at Cabo St Lucas.

first of all, i must say that dubya has no eyes when he smiles

that being said, i dot suport bush or kerry, all my vews are verry close to those who made a certain web site, ya might want to try it http://www.jibjab.com/default.asp

i dont suport the war, it is overs daddys old fight, but i feel our troops need all the suport and respect we can give em, lets not make this another nam

o and i forgot to mention that i disagree with the whole party system, its a demografic making up your mind for you, and it is stupid, everyone wants democricy, but america is a democratic republic

I'd rather have an intellect than a dunce, even if his ego needs its own zip code.

__________________

Then you've decided. Get out and vote, bitch. Don't think about the fact that your state will invariably vote for Bush, rendering your vote powerless. Instead, think of the good side: you're white, so it'll go on the records. Meaningless, true, but counted.

And nobody really wants a democracy. Not only is it impossible in a country of this size, but it's a bad idea without checks like, say, Federalism. You get real democracy, you get a crushed and unrepresented bunch of minorities - and I don't simply mean ethnic - and a majority jerked around by unelected demagogues. Kinda like now. Also, people do everything in their power to avoid any active role in government as it is, and when they don't they tend to fuck it up. The problem with the system as it is now is that we're supposed to get people in power able to protect us from our dumbassedness, yet we keep electing dumbasses. That and lesser evil voting. That sucks.

What makes you say all of Texas will vote Bush? ...Just because my dad is a member of Halliburton doesn't require him to vote Bush because Bush happens to have relations with it.
Although, he did become president in the first place and we all knew he was an idiot. Well damn this state to beer hell then.

__________________

Certain states historically vote Republican and Democrat, and people rarely lose their home states. Especially the ones they've been governor of. For example: I live in New York. New York will be won by Kerry. Foregone conclusion. It's the states that aren't predominately one or the other that people have to win over. I don't mean all of Texas will vote Bush, I'm just saying it's a cinch he's going to win the state.

Kerry will definitely win Massachusetts, too. I'm still going to vote for him, though, because that way if somehow America is stupid enough to re-elect Bush (and chances are we are), I can still say whatever I want about Bush and know morally I did everything within my power.

"The road to tyranny, we must remember, begins with the destruction of the truth."
- Bill Clinton



The most common vote-getting statements are "Clinton created the best economy this country has ever seen and Bush screwed it up" and "Clinton left a burgeoning economy and a $5.6 trillion surplus. Bush destroyed the economy and created a $400 billion deficit".

If your vote is going to be influenced by economic parameters, you should read some FACTS before making a decision.

We can begin with Billy's $5.6 trillion surplus quoted by Tom Daschle. As of November, 2000, the number was $230 billion - quoted by Bill Clinton. Daschle's $5.6 trillion is a future PROJECTION based on the economy remaining at the levels that were quoted before the correction. (See below.)

Let's take a look at the numbers. Stay with me - we're gonna make this easy.



After having convinced voters there was a recession - "It's the economy, stupid" - Clinton actually took over a strong, recovering economy in 1993. (Details below)

Clinton put Little Al in charge of "reinventing your government". They cut federal jobs, BUT ... 75% of them were in the Department of Defense - 700,000 active, 290,000 reserve, 8 army divisions, 2000 combat aircraft, 232 bombers, 13 fleet ballistic subs, 121 fast attack subs, 232 sea launched ballistic missiles, 500 ICBM's and 4 carriers and their air wings. All this while twenty rather dangerous nations now have ballistic missile programs and a Chinese shipping company took control of the Panama Canal.



Which, by the way, is why President Bush just signed a $355.5 billion defense bill - the biggest military spending increase (11%) since the Reagan administration.

The Code of Federal Regs grew by 29,000 pages; the amount of money collected by the government grew by $100 billion; we got an all-time high personal income tax at 9.6% of Gross Domestic Product (previous record 9.4% in 1944 to finance WWII - remember, Defense spending was down 49%); we have the largest trade deficit in history which grew under Clinton's leadership from $39 billion to $360 billion (nearly 1000%); foreign government holdings of our dollars, including Japan and CHINA were $432 billion in 1989 and were at $1 trillion in 1999.

From 1993 until Clinton's exit, the Federal payroll grew from $5.9 to $7.4 billion a month and total Federal outlay was 50% over 1990 levels (keep remembering - Defense spending was down 49%).

AND - just for the record, the budget was balanced using money from the now sacrosanct Social Security Fund; which, by the way, was used every year for the past forty years EXCEPT for the year 2000.

~~
AND - excerpts from the 8/13/02 Crier:

What we've been told -

The reported annual economic growth rate for the first three quarters of 1992 averaged only 2.4 percent.

By election day, Nov. 7, 2000, the reported annual economic growth rate for the first three quarters of 2000 averaged 4.4 percent; corporate profits were breaking records from one quarter to the next, and the unemployment rate was below 4 percent.

With the exception of the October 2000 unemployment rate, which would rise more than 50 percent with the onset of the recession that instantly began(?) three months later, we now learn that none of those statistics were real.

... Up-to-date ... FACTS:

Corrected data for 1992 reveals that the annual economic growth rate for that year's first three quarters averaged 3.6 percent, rising to 5.4 percent during 1992's fourth quarter. (Clinton took over an economy well on it's way to recovery.)

Corrected data for the first three quarters of 2000 now reveal that the annual economic growth rate averaged less than 2.7 percent, falling to 1.1 percent during the fourth quarter. (Bush took over an ailing economy.)

Corrections to the "record levels" of corporate profits for 2000 show that pretax profits for nonfinancial domestic industries peaked at $504.5 billion in 1997. Those profits declined during each of the next three years - completely contrary to the Department of Commerce reports throughout the last three years of the Clinton-Gore administration.

Differences between the administration reports in 1999 and the first half of 2000 and the subsequent corrections:

Reported corporate profits for 1999 were $530.4 billion. They were subsequently revised downward by 16 percent to $455.9 billion.

For the first two quarters of 2000, the annual rates of corporate profits were reported to be $574.9 billion and $606.5 billion. These figures have since been revised to $441 billion and $449.7 billion, respectively, reflecting downward adjustments of 30.4 percent and 34.9 percent. In case you think you read that wrong, that was 30.4 and 34.9 percent!

We now know that the false reports of surging profits from the second half of 1998 through the first half of 2000 helped fuel the roaring stock market. The surging market, then, generated wealth and consumer confidence, which fueled record consumption. It also encouraged "exuberant overinvestment", which, given the hidden, rapidly deteriorating economy - now evidenced by the revised growth figures for 2000 - probably prevented the economy from falling into recession during a presidential election year.

It's pretty easy to quote inaccurate figures spewed forth by Republicans, but
if you notice, they haven't done anything to try to explain why it's okay for Bush to blatantly destroy the environment. I've seen fucked up figures like the ones you have shown me, I have also seen figures that show that Clinton did save the economy. What I have NOT seen, however, are any figures showing why it's okay to repeal important provisions of the Clean Air Act (in effect allowing much more toxic emission into the air), and then have the nerve to refer to this repeal as the "Clear Skies" program. I'm also not sure how the promotion of logging of old growth forests can be refered to as the "Healthy Forests" initiative. Why is it okay to destroy the environment while simultaneously trying to cover it up with pretty, reassuring names? Please explain that to me, I'd sure like to know. Why is it okay for the Bush administration to halt investigations into the illegal pollution of corporations? Why is okay to put the brakes on justice? Since when are rich people allowed to do whatever want to the environment, just so they can make MORE money? Since Bush got into office, that's when.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1120-01.htm
"Last year, the EPA's two most senior career enforcement officials resigned after decades of service. They cited the administration's refusal to carry out environmental laws."

Here's some more interesting quotes, pal!
"...this 2001 deception is only one example of the administration's pattern of strategic distortion. Earlier this year, it suppressed an EPA report warning that millions of Americans, especially children, are being poisoned by mercury from industrial sources."

"On August 27th, 2002 - while most of America was heading off for a Labor Day weekend -- the administration announced that it would redefine carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global warming, so that it would no longer be considered a pollutant and would therefore not be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The next day, the White House repealed the act's "new source review" provision, which requires companies to modernize pollution control when they modify their plants.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, the White House rollback will cause 30,000 Americans to die prematurely each year. Although the regulation will probably be reversed in the courts, the damage will have been done, and power utilities such as Southern Co. will escape criminal prosecution. As soon as the new regulations were announced, John Pemberton, chief of staff to the EPA's assistant administrator for air, left the agency to work for Southern. The EPA's congressional office chief also left, to join Southern's lobbying shop, Bracewell, Patterson."

Try coming up with figures to try to hide that, buddy.

How 'bout bush wanting to drill oil on A FUCKING WILDLIFE PRESERVE!!! (Alaska)

Fucking redneck.

__________________

Hey, don't forget the forest that mysteriously went up in flames when Bush visited Oregon after having his attempt to log it blocked. Things like that are always charming.

Incidentally, a lot of people claim global warming's a myth - about the same number of people who claim that the earth is only a couple thousand years old and the reason it appears older is because carbon dating is fundamentally flawed, as half lives are caused by radiation from the stars and God had a layer of water floating around the world for a long time that blocked off the radiation, and with the same kind of logic - so I'm not sure that'll be a huge obstacle. You're going to end up with an argument where what both sides are saying is backed up by something the other side considers worthless - for example, a lot of SinThetIc's argument seems to rely on a stance toward the military that I doubt everyone shares - which is the most fun kind to watch but the most terrible to be involved in. So I'm shutting up now.

Global Warming....

Quote 1: The AP said: "Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year..."

Facts: Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas (water vapor is).2

Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat is quite limited.3

Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).4

The sun, not a gas, is primarily to "blame" for global warming -- and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well.


Quote 2: The AP said: "Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space."

Fact: Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does.5


Quote 3: The AP said: "Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases."

Facts: Most of 20th Century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century,6 before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed in the 20th Century7).

As domestic oil production continued its decline, the U.S. imported 65% of its petroleum needs in 2004. These oil imports cost more than $100 billion and robbed tens of thousands of steady, high-paying jobs from American workers.


More than 20,000 foreign supertankers (most single-hulled) offloaded oil at east, west and gulf coast refineries last year; they carry from 700,000 to 1.2 million barrels a day from Iraq alone. Foreign oil is produced and shipped under less strict environmental standards than domestic oil. Alaska’s oil fields are the cleanest in the world, second to none.

Soo if you are that worried about it...Do you drive a car? Complain about the price of gas? For that matter...every breath u take is releasing harmful Co2 into the atmosphere...

Word, I got so lost in this thread.

__________________

Your statements on CO2 only evidence that it is not the biggest part of global warming. Unfortunately, tons of things factor in to global warming, and CO2 does represent a significant portion of it. You didn't even bother challenging my other statements, probably because either A: you didn't realize how bad things were, or B: You know they are true and you don't have a response.

What the hell does foreign vs. domestic oil have anything to do with pollution? Fossil fuels pollute regardless of where they come from. Why did you even bring that up? Your statement about me releasing CO2 when I exhale was certainly priceless- this just in- EVERYBODY BREATHES. Yes, as odd as it sounds, everybody emits miniscule amounts of CO2 when they breathe. Strange, but true. People can't do anything about that (other than die), but people can do something about getting over our dependence on dangerous fossil fuels. Also of note- we WILL run out fossil fuels eventually. Time to move on.

Finally, NO, I do not drive a car. I walk to most places, and I also take the bus. If more people took the bus, it would SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the amount of air pollution, something Bush obviously isn't concerned with.

Where's your figures to show me why it's okay for Bush to revoke laws that protect our drinking water from harmful levels of arsenic.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0322-04.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/28/arsenic.lawsuit/

I hope you didn't really think those few environmental issues I mentioned in my earlier reply were the only issues there were. I could go on and on bringing up new problems while you're busy trying to find skewed figures to make it look okay.

If you take the time to look at this objectively, there is no way you could even consider Bush to be a viable president- http://www.environment2004.org/files/FLreport.pdf

'...According to the Washington Post, he stood on the edge of the Everglades and "portrayed himself as the more reliable environmental steward in the race" for President. "As you can see," he told the TV cameras, "there is no ambiguity in my position on drilling off the coast of Florida" (Washington Post, 4/24/04). He's right -- there is little ambiguity. The Bush administration has already opened 1.5 million acres off of Florida's coast to oil and gas drilling. Bush has also supported an energy bill that would set the stage for further drilling, while restricting the state government's ability to protect the coast.'
http://www.moveonpac.org/drilling/

The funny thing is, I am JUST talking about the environment. I'm never even coming close to delving into the economy, the whole Medicare scandal, Bush's insistence on pumping far too much of this nation's money into weapons we don't need, etc.

From the start im going to state that i cant be fucked reading your posts, but i will put my 2 cents in anyway
God dammit, im sick of people whining about greenhouse gasses and the precious ozne layer. Come spend a fucking summer in Australia, you will see that there is a god damm problem. The hole in the ozone is right above Australai i believe, and i have noticed a difference in the climate from when i was young, and now (thats about a decade). Its now hotter than it ever used to be, there is also less rain than there was before.

__________________

...most of the hole is over Antarctica; being over Austraila is news to me.

...and the Ozone can heal itself. The jazz about us not being able to produce O3 it true, it's impossible. But I believe that the Ozone Layer does have the ability to heal..........over a period of time.....

__________________

well i am down the "ass end" of australia, reguardless the sun still stings in the height of summer

__________________

Im not going to bother challenging you everyone thinks what they want. However, the idea of global warming is bullshit. Besides no scientist knows the cycle the earth goes threw. I guess the cavemen farted too much or had too many fires and spawned the first ice age .One large volcanic erruption emits more co2 and other harmful gases into the enviorment then every automobile and industrial plant combined. But that aside.... Dont get me wrong i want too see a steady weening off of the heavy use of gasoline. But i would like to see the U.S. move away from its dependency on other nations to supply oil first. It gives them far too much leverage in the world. Not to mention sucks money out of all of our pockets.
Now i belive you stated we should mind are own buisness.
So basically we should let everyother country do what ever they please. We should let Iran and North Korea have as many nukes as they want. These countries dont have the same amount of protection on their sights as we do. And for that matter they really dont care. The mutual destruction theory is out the window when it comes to these nations and terrorist within them. These Arab nations have done nothing but war for the last 3 thousand years. Peace talks and the U.N. are useless. Terrorist hate the west for the simple fact we arent one of them. I mean its a sad fact the U.S. has to babysit these countries. But if more countries in europe werent such lil pussies we wouldnt look like the bad guy all the time.


but ya Clinton took money out of the Military and bonds and pumped them into the defict. We might as well Credit Clinton for inventing the internet and windows. Without thoose two things the econmy would have been missing hundreds of billions of dollars that werent there before.

damn well said man, damn well said

__________________

The USA has never been a democracy, we are a Republic and always have been.

I will be voting for Bush in '04, as much as I don't want to, he's far too liberal. At least with Bush we know what we get, and even though I disagree with alot of his domestic policies the man does what he says he's going to do, and that's a quality I like. Kerry on the other hand is all over the fucking map, can't stand him. Sure Bush is not the most eloquent speaker, but he's got the balls to do what it takes to fight this war, even if it's againt popular international opinion, Kerry on the other hand is a giant pussy. What the fuck is "more sensative warfare" anyway? Fuck that.

__________________

Kerry - Doesn't have a fucking idea what he would do if he was President
Bush - A Massive Idiot that has all the WRONG ideas as President



Well, good luck America!

__________________

I see your reason to re-elect Bush, but this war didn't even have to happen. There's no denying it's all his fault.

__________________

I live in Scotland sadly run by dubya's little brown nosing lapdog tony blair
How shit is that?

__________________

This is probably going to piss a few of you angst ridden teenager types off. And a few of you commie liberal chamealeon types too.



Bullshit, if you're talking about Iraq then don't bother, this war has been going on for the past 12 years. If you believe differently then you're kidding yourself. The only difference is the weapons used to wage it and the group of people who got the shaft. This war did need to happen, and it should have happened 13 years ago. If you think those economic sanctions and the Oil for Food program weren't basically UN endorsed genocide, then you're kidding yourself. If you think Saddam Hussein didn't support terrorism then you're a fucking dolt who doesn't understand that terrorism isn't synonymous with Al Qaida alone. If you think that Saddam Hussein wasn't the only person capable of stopping this war then you seriously need to read up on recent events in the Middle East. If you think that anything Michael Moore tries to feed you isn't pushing a sinister agenda of his own that does not have you in its best interests, then you're fucking hopeless.

Too bad Bush Sr was a huge fucking pussy who listened to the rest of the world when they begged him to keep Saddam in power because of all the money he owed. For fucks sake he was part of it, though not as big of a part as a few of our european and asian "allies". Saddam was a cash cow, and that's the reason they left him in power.

Yes he did have to go, and yeah it's about fucking time we did something about a huge problem. Turn the clock back to '96 and '98 and listen to what everyone was saying about Saddam. I don't like the USA playing world police either, but you know what if we don't no one will, then the west is fucked. Iraq was long over due.

__________________

Well, what I'm thinking at the moment is that we can't win when it comes down to the middle east - they're going to commit acts of terror whether we stay in Iraq or leave. It's a complicated and delicate situation that far greater leaders than Bush would have a problem sorting out. This is going to be a long, bloody conflict so don't hold out for Bush or Kerry (or whoever their successor is for that matter) to sort it out.

Powers: The ozone does indeed regenerate.

__________________

I don't even need to read your arguements. With a statement like that that I know you're an idiot. Your assumption that people against bush are that fucking pathetic label, is idiocy.

__________________

Anubis: Don't forget to mention how many goddamned bombing campaigns went on in Irag since the Gulf War, which, if memory serves, is the traditional U.S. method of waging a war it doesn't want to really commit to. I can remember, a few years back, cracking jokes about the yearly bomb-the-shit-out-of-Iraq ceremony.

Nevertheless, the way they're going about the war isn't exactly intelligent, especially trying to plant seeds of democracy in a place that everybody's strongest beliefs makes arid and infertile. I can see that this war's overdue - not that it necessarily had to happen, but that something did - but it's not going to make me like it.

Good point, Trendkill.

I think it all comes down to:

You cannot destroy a people who would die intentionally for a cause. America, in other words, will never win themselves overseas. We fight for the American way and they fight for their race.

__________________

Wonder if its all going to go tits up shall consult the bbc from now on they tell it good

__________________

hahahaha, what?!

__________________

I think Bush Said it best..."We have a more bullets then they have Virgins in heaven"

Oh yeah, pure verbal genius, that man. That doesn't sound a bit like the dumbass redneck barroom palaver that chokes the air the smoke should inhabit before every barfight I've ever seen or been involved in, and a load more that never happened. Really, it's very clever.

Well, I'm sure the people of Tuvalu, who had to evacuate their island homeland due to rising water levels caused by global warming are less than consoled by your words.
http://whyfiles.org/updates/091beach/



Actually, the most recent stage of glaciation was set off in the middle of the Pliocene, before Homo sapiens even existed. It's hard to control an environment in which you never existed. There goes that theory. By the way, if you expect ANYBODY to take you seriously, you really should learn the difference between the words "through" and "threw". After all, scientists, don't throw Earth's cycles like footballs.



Exactly how often does a large eruption occur? I'm sure you aren't even factoring in the time period that goes in between large volcanic eruptions. Let's assume a large volcanic eruption occurs every five years- are you saying that that one eruption emits more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than every automobile and industrial plant OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS? Obviously you forgot to factor that in. Another thing you forgot to factor in is the immediate effects on nearby ecosystems by pollution from automobiles and industrial plants. You've also forgot to mention the fact that the pollutants in the air cause urban (and some suburban) residents many health problems (some deadly), mostly children. Volcanic eruptions don't allow particles of rubber into the air. I'd like to see your rebuttal for that. Even if I were to assume that volcanic eruptions do more damage to this world than automobile and industrial air pollution, the fact still remains that we can CONTROL pollution. We can minimize the amount of damage to the ozone. Not that you really care about the future of this planet.

It's obvious in your posts that you have about as much disregard for science as does the Bush administration. God isn't going to save you from the world you destroyed. Even if he existed, do you really think he would save you? If you had a kid, and he melted his favorite toy on the stove on purpose, would you buy it for him again? Nobody is going to save humans from their own ignorance, and you seem to personify the word. You know nothing about science or the environment.



We were talking about Iraq, not North Korea. Iraq has no nukes. There goes your pathetic excuse. You cited that Saddam supported terrorism, I rebutted that he supported terrorism against Israel, a state that could easily beat the shit out of Iraq if they needed to. They have a far better military and more sophisticated weapons (and always have). I simply shot down your theory of Saddam's ties to terrorism, as it's obvious you had been taken in by Republican propaganda trying to make it look like Saddam has ties to terror attacks against the US, which he clearly doesn't. People are terrified because of what happened on 9-11-01, and so Republicans are trying to scare people. Look what we did! We beat up Saddam! Nevermind the fact that we haven't gotten our hands on the REAL terrorist threats, we'll make some vague reference to Saddam and terrorism and hope you are all stupid enough to think Saddam bombed the Twin Towers. Unfortunately, it worked, and I was simply showing you that it simply had nothing to do with us, so forget it.

By the way, nobody is allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons. They don't really want nuclear weapons at this point, and despite your ignorant statements, they neither have any nor are they developing any. You probably don't realize that. Any nuclear programs they were following at one point have long since been canned. Iran does not want to fuck with us right now and they are not going to. Quit trying to dramatize the threat of nuclear weapons by Iraq, the only countries right now that could even be perceived as a possible threat to the US are China and North Korea. Neither of them are going to bother us, because they fully understand the concept of mutual destruction just as much as we do.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996350



Clinton didn't take needed money out of the military. He simply didn't WASTE as much money as Bush is on many, many extremely expensive weapons that we don't need and are never going to use. Some presidents try to wage war to make themselves look good for the elections, and it has backfired on Bush.

It's also great that you are trying to credit the internet for saving the economy that, in fact, Clinton saved. Funny how tons and tons of internet companies have gone belly up since Bush has gotten into office. I'm sure it's all a terrible coincidence. I won't even mention all the free IPS's that used to exist up until Bush fucked up the economy and made it impossible for these IPS's to stay in business. You are really grasping at straws, and it shows. You have no real argument, and I could drive a van through the holes in it. You haven't given any evidence to show that Bush doesn't have the worst environmental record out of any president since people starting becoming aware of the environment. That imbecile Reagan (thank god that asshole's dead!) comes close, but his disregard for science and the well being of future generations doesn't quite compare with that of Bush's.

You know its not only the middle east that has all these terrorists, just last week the Australian Embasy in Jakarta (indonesia) was bombed. The problem is basically the musim's core beliefs, that if they kill themselves for Allah (or however its spelt) against the western Infidels, then they will go to heaven (or what their paradise is) where 7 virgins will be waiting for them. Basically there isn't much we can do to rid them of their core beliefs, its not possible unless we completely destroy their religion. The thing we need to do is not take away their leaders or kill the terrorists, but to convince the whole muslim world that western people are not evil spawn of the devil, but have as much right to life as they do, which will essentially be extremely difficult to do.

__________________

woohoo i have someone that at least agrees with my views somewhat on here, but ya i'd go even more conservative if i could


oh yeah and do some poking around, they found nukes wmd's in iraq, the liberal media just glanced over it though

__________________

why the fuck would you want that. then you'd need to teach 7 bitches how to fuck.


But on the serious side. thank you chris. See i've heard those facts, i'm just lazy. I know they exist, but when I have to dig em up i get lazy. The way i see it, ignorant fucks (like the ones you are addressing) won't read between the lies anyway so i don't bother. But I thank you that you DO bother. Maybe someone will pay attention. If you sway at least one republican you've done your part for humanity (that sounds like an overstatement, but that's fucking REALITY).

I'm actually curious. Sinthetic. How old are you?
I'm guessing 14-20


once again
chris (though panterA rule!..in the butt!)

__________________