Here's what I resent about Bush

[vraiblonde]

He knows he can give big bucks to the NEA, AIDS for Africa and whatever else he thinks will get him in good with the libs - and people like me will still vote for him. Who else are we gonna vote for - John Kerry? The Constitution guy?

Maybe Hessian's right and it's time for me to give up on the Republicans. I alternate between being really impressed with Bush and thinking he's a big stinking wuss. I'm sick of all this pandering to the nutball left and their stupid ass causes.

 

[Vince]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
He knows he can give big bucks to the NEA, AIDS for Africa and whatever else he thinks will get him in good with the libs - and people like me will still vote for him. Who else are we gonna vote for - John Kerry? The Constitution guy?

I think you're gonna see our money go places we don't want it to go no matter whose in office. All these idiots feel we have to maintain foreign relations. To hell with foreign relations. Most of the other countries hate us anyway. I think we need to keep this money here at home and fix our own country with it. Curtain imigration or cut it off completely. The money we send out for AIDS, stop it. Keep it here at home and use it for AIDS research. Find a damn cure. I'll get off my soap box now. Vote for Kerry? NEVER!!

 

[Frank]

You know that old proverb, "It's better to be a live dog, than a dead lion?". It doesn't do Bush any good to stick to strictly conservative lines if it means he's out of office come the fall. *You* might think he's unbeatable, but without those moderate votes, he hasn't got a prayer.

People are accusing him of pandering - in many ways, he seems to *me* to be tossing a few bones here and there. He can't finish the job he started if he's sent packing.

 

[Tonio]

In many ways, we really don't have two parties anymore. We have a gazillion special-interest groups (corporate and non-corporate) masquerading as parties. The Big Two kowtow to them because they are the source of campaign money.

This produces some wacky alliances. Environmental groups, which include many people morally opposed to hunting, often side with hunting groups on preservation issues. Women's groups and Christian fundamentalist groups are mortal enemies on the abortion issue, but allies on pornography issues. (Of course, that's for completely different reasons--the women's groups want to keep females from being objectified, and the fundamentalist groups want to prevent males from engaging in self-gratification.)

 

[Sharon]

Someone needs to remind me why I should vote for Bush. Has he really earned my vote? The 2 party system has become an "us or them" mentality and we all just settle for one or the other.

Some republicans are already talking about staying home during the next election because Bush is way out there in center field. What's the difference between staying home, voting for the constitution guy or someone else?

 

[Voter2002]

I'm Republican and a Bush supporter.....

...but it really cracks my arse when he panders to the left and minority groups fishing for votes - such as his plan for allowing all illegal immigrants in the country now getting legal status for working purposes....bazillion dollars to put astronauts on Mars when we still have unemployment/homeless/AIDS amongst us.

Don't get me wrong - I'm NO closet liberal...but I think he needs to re-think his spending priorities sometimes instead of fishing for votes....

With that all said, I'm still all for Bush for a second term!

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Sharon
The 2 party system has become an "us or them" mentality

 

[Bruzilla]

Maybe we can get "None of the Above" added to the ballots.

 

[ceo_pte]

Get out of the UN. I'm all for helping people in foreign countries, who do not know what Freedom is like. I believe once the free enterprise system takes hold in Iraq, it will become much like India. The people will embrace it and fight for it. They, just as us, deserve to be free. I don't know, but I wouldn't send another penny to the European mainland or to the EU.

 

[Bruzilla]

Originally posted by Voter2002
I'm Republican and a Bush supporter.....

...but it really cracks my arse when he panders to the left and minority groups fishing for votes - such as his plan for allowing all illegal immigrants in the country now getting legal status for working purposes....bazillion dollars to put astronauts on Mars when we still have unemployment/homeless/AIDS amongst us.

Don't get me wrong - I'm NO closet liberal...but I think he needs to re-think his spending priorities sometimes instead of fishing for votes....

With that all said, I'm still all for Bush for a second term!

I hate to say this but... AIDS and the homeless will always be with us as long as there are human beings on the planet. They are both behavior-driven problems, and no amount of money is going to change those behaviors.

As for unemployment, it's time for a reality check. The current unemployment rate (UR) is 5.7%. You might wan't to think about the UR in the same way as people look at milk fat. Some people think that buying 2% milk is extra healthy because it means that 98% of the fat is gone. They don't realize that whole milk only has 3% to start with.

There's no way that any society can get below a little under 3% unemployment. When you factor in people of working age who cannot work, you'll always be at about 3% no matter how many jobs are available. So what we're really looking at is an unemployment rate of about 2.7%. That 2.7% represents people who "have looked for work..." as per the US Department of Labor. That does not mean people who can't find work, it means people who have looked for work and haven't found a job. How many of those people are just wanting to collect unemployment (and I know more than a few who are), how many are people who could get a job but don't want to take anything that's beneath them, etc. Also, the 5.7% number is an average that gets more than a bit influenced by high-unemployment rate groups like teenagers (16%), blacks (10%), etc.

Here's another number to remember: the US loses about 147,000,000 workers every year... due to death, retirement, quiting jobs, etc., i.e., not just due to jobs being lost. That's a lot of workers leaving the work force each year, and lots of positions opening, all without any increased government spending.

When taken in total, the US unemplyment rate is almost down in the weeds, especially once you factor in the number of people who could find work if they chose to do it. Why waste money on them?

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by Voter2002
....bazillion dollars to put astronauts on Mars when we still have unemployment/homeless/AIDS amongst us.

This always gets me. And every time there's been a discussion about space, there's always *someone* who will say "why spend money on space when we have so much on Earth we need more?".

And the thing is, for *years* this has been an incredibly stupid argument.

Until recently - the space program cost has been trivially small. When someone would make that same complaint, it was like saying "why spend another ten bucks on space? We *need* that ten bucks to add to the millions on OTHER programs!". Honest. It's always been very small in comparison. It's like complaining about a ten dollar rise in the cost of a car.

But there's a new wrinkle in the old space race problem. It ain't just Russia anymore. China will soon have men on the moon. Europe will soon have a bigger role in space. Just from a simple security situation, we can't afford to fall behind them.

I think a permanent moon base is MUCH more useful than a mission to Mars. But who knows? The space program of the 60's yielded technology that more than paid for itself.

The moon is a magnificent place for exploring space, solving problems relating to health, energy, environment, medicine. Having a national goal, like putting a man on Mars would force us to try to solve real problems - space is very unforgiving, and it requires very precise work.

I think a renewed but fiscally responsible return to space would be the best thing for us now.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by Bruzilla

As for unemployment, it's time for a reality check. The current unemployment rate (UR) is 5.7%. You might wan't to think about the UR in the same way as people look at milk fat.

It used to be said that "5%" unemployment was called "full employment" because no one believed that anything lower could be sustained by a healthy economy without runaway inflation.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Frank
The space program of the '60s yielded technology that more than paid for itself.

Very true.

 

[ceo_pte]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
I hate to say this but... AIDS and the homeless will always be with us as long as there are human beings on the planet. They are both behavior-driven problems, and no amount of money is going to change those behaviors.

As for unemployment, it's time for a reality check. The current unemployment rate (UR) is 5.7%. You might wan't to think about the UR in the same way as people look at milk fat. Some people think that buying 2% milk is extra healthy because it means that 98% of the fat is gone. They don't realize that whole milk only has 3% to start with.

There's no way that any society can get below a little under 3% unemployment. When you factor in people of working age who cannot work, you'll always be at about 3% no matter how many jobs are available. So what we're really looking at is an unemployment rate of about 2.7%. That 2.7% represents people who "have looked for work..." as per the US Department of Labor. That does not mean people who can't find work, it means people who have looked for work and haven't found a job. How many of those people are just wanting to collect unemployment (and I know more than a few who are), how many are people who could get a job but don't want to take anything that's beneath them, etc. Also, the 5.7% number is an average that gets more than a bit influenced by high-unemployment rate groups like teenagers (16%), blacks (10%), etc.

Here's another number to remember: the US loses about 147,000,000 workers every year... due to death, retirement, quiting jobs, etc., i.e., not just due to jobs being lost. That's a lot of workers leaving the work force each year, and lots of positions opening, all without any increased government spending.

When taken in total, the US unemplyment rate is almost down in the weeds, especially once you factor in the number of people who could find work if they chose to do it. Why waste money on them?

I know some of the A-holes too. Lazy arses #### me off and they are the same ones who will call you lucky when you become wealthy.

 

[Pete]

The only real problem I have is the perpetual woody he has for opening the border with Mexico.

I like the slap he gave Canada with the soft timber tarrif because they were dumping wood products. Thus preserving jobs in the wood industry.

I like the slap he have the asians and Russians with the steel tarrif for dumping steel. Unfortunatly it was too late because the prior administrations ignored it and most of the steel mills were already out of business.

I didn't understand the whole banana tarrif but it pizzed of the EU so it must have been good.

I like the pro-active foriegn policy, "Shape up or we are coming". For too many years we sat back and absorbed body blows form terrorists and terrorist states. Sure we did some wussy "Measured response" stuff, but they don't speak "measured". Well like Iraq or not, WMD or not, W got the worlds attention that we will no long sit idly by and take chin shots. We have a gun and we will use it, you freaking barbarians.

NEA, yea that pizzes me off too. But it should pizz off the libs more. Every buck he gives the NEA, who then filters it down to pay some goober to shoot paint out of his butt onto a bed sheet, could have fed a hungry child.

I like the tax cuts.

I liked his stance on not affording TSA employees union protections because then it is IMPOSSIBLE to fire a loser once they weasel in. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that every govvie is a loser. But I am saying a waste of skin working in the copy machine room at the Federal Court building in Boise who should have been fired years ago but cannot be because of protection does not compromise my safety, a TSA employee working an x-ray machine a BWI does. If he is a loser fire him. We don't need to have a meeting about it, or a hearing, pack his shiyat, take the goofy T-shirt and the hat and walk the moron to the door.

I am torqued that the No child left behind act did not get fully funded.

I am happy that the government was re-organized to form the Dept. Of Homeland Security.

I am not happy azzes were not spanked in the intel community.

I don't like the other discresionary spending, even though I do not know what it was spent on.

 

[Hessian]

Don't sit out the election....

Of course I know that the Constitution Party candidate will not win BUT...
The sheer # of supporters will encourage them to keep pressing for traditional values, literal interp of the Bill of Rights, and small government. It may send a message to Republicans NOT to take us for granted.

Sitting out the election does NOT carry as much of a message...it just means they'll try spending MORE to get you to come out (its easier to pay for advertising then to permanently change the direction of government.)

And reinterating what many of you have said: pandering to the left with $$ for the NEA, AIDs, illegal aliens...WILL NOT BENEFIT THE REPUBLICANS!!...it only breeds contempt from those who say: enough is enough- Right is Right!

 

[ceo_pte]

Originally posted by Hessian
Don't sit out the election....

Of course I know that the Constitution Party candidate will not win BUT...
The sheer # of supporters will encourage them to keep pressing for traditional values, literal interp of the Bill of Rights, and small government. It may send a message to Republicans NOT to take us for granted.

Sitting out the election does NOT carry as much of a message...it just means they'll try spending MORE to get you to come out (its easier to pay for advertising then to permanently change the direction of government.)

And reinterating what many of you have said: pandering to the left with $$ for the NEA, AIDs, illegal aliens...WILL NOT BENEFIT THE REPUBLICANS!!...it only breeds contempt from those who say: enough is enough- Right is Right!

LIberals are for small government? WTF? I guess they don't get mad when bush cuts welfare then? That's why the dems need to raise taxes, to fund all the d.... fed programs they have, which is run by more federal employees. Think b4 you talk....

 

[Hessian]

http://www.constitutionparty.com/ustp-99p1.html

This is a list of platform positions taken back in 2000.

My urging is that Bush not pander to liberal causes because its wasted effort:

1) Liberals will NEVER be won over
2) Moderates are too hard to predict and can't be won over with a token issue.
3) Conservatives get ticked off and either don't vote, vote for a third party or vote for just local candidates.

CEO...you misunderstood my position...think before you type.

 

[ceo_pte]

you are right...


It was just this part that through me off.

The sheer # of supporters will encourage them to keep pressing for traditional values, literal interp of the Bill of Rights, and small government.

 

[hwyman3]

President Bush needs to learn from the mistakes of his father or we will see history repeat itself once again. President H.W. Bush went into the 92 election with high popularity ratings, he had just defeated Iraq in the first Gulf War. But he tried to get the approval of the Democrats by going back on his word and broke his "No New Taxes" pledge. This angered his conservative base. Of course, the conservatives weren't going to go for Clinton, but many of the "Regan Democrats" of the 80s did vote for Ross Perot. By alienating his core supporters, many left him and voted third party and there wasn't enough votes to keep CLinton out of the White House. No conservate will ever win over a liberal. There is no point pandering to them. Granted, I do not want to see Bush lose in November. I will still vote for him, mainly because of all the Democratic candidates will still be worse than the mistakes he has made with immigration and the NEA. I'm just afraid that too many conservatives will stay home in November and we could end up with a President Kerry or President Clark.