I have been wondering myself this question every single time BOTH candidates brings this up. How can YOU create jobs? You have some sort of doctrine or algorithm to specifically create a job or numerous jobs? I think not. The American public creates jobs. Businesses create jobs. Consumer demand create jobs. Without those, NO JOBS. And when businesses do not have revenue, they do not have jobs. This is why you are frendly to buisnesses. You don't tax the holy hell out of them. You inspire success. You don't condemn it by taxing it. To me, the Kerry folk don't seem to grasp this. I'm sorry, workers are not jobs. Employers are jobs. Kerry wants to tax the employer but not the worker.

I saw my dad's income taxes for 2003. He made over $100K last year. By no means do I have a luxurious home or the latest fancy equipment. I have a 1999 white Nissan Sentra that is in BADLY need of an alignment and further tune-up. I do believe Kerry will classify my dad as one of those upper middle-class people. My dad has actually got employees under him. He has made sufficient income to where he can afford workers. These are the kinds of people you do not heavily tax. Reagan saw this. Bush saw this. John F. Kennedy saw this. Why can't Kerry see this?

Funny thing is, why was there such a large deficit during their terms? When Clinton got into office in 1992, he intentionally reversed the supply-side economic policies of Reagan and Bush I. What happened next? The longest sustained economic growth in the history of the USA and a 5.2 trillion 10-year projected surplus.

Clinton also didn't have a friendly legislature to do his bidding



You can still love someone and not agree with their lifestyle, or what they do.

I disagree, sort of. At least, if you replace 'agree with' with 'accept', then I totally disagree with you.

Obama '08

Freelancer it can be argued that the Bush/Reagan policies were just coming into fruition as Clinton took office, and then Clinton's policies were taking effect just as he left office.

Quite frankly, the economy and the presidency are two separate entities. The president is like a man standing on a beach looking at a lake. He can throw rocks into it and splash around a bit, but all he will do is make a few ripples. If times get tough and there is no rain to fill it up (citizens spending money) the lake is going to go down.

Okay, maybe, just maybe, as far as the economy is concerned. But the deficit? Hell no. That's a direct result of presidential policy.

More like the legislature and the president.

Yes we spent on a deficit. I do not deny that. But I think we spent it well in the 80s. I'm sure the nations behind the Iron Curtain would not have us otherwise.

Our current deficit is a result of us being scared ****less. When 19 mother****ers decide it's their "unfounded duty against the infidels" to slam into buildings one Tuesday morning, yeah, you get spooked. People were scared to spend money. Hell, some were probably scared to go out the front door! Yet we really couldn't wait for the public to calm down. We had to catch them. As soon and terrorists started to become captured, people started easing their fears, well gee golly the economy recovers. As what is going on right now. We'll climb out of deficit. And I can honestly put Bush as a factor in our economic recovery.

Sharpton '08

shut up ubuu '04

I am going to vote for Bush just to spite you.

Bite my shiny metal ***.

I would just like to say that I agree with frog with everything he's posted so far, especially in regards to LonelyDagger. Sorry LD, you're the only one that sounds like you're debating in a high school election.

I would also like to say I agree with Freelancer on almost everything he's said.

I would also like to say the President DOES have the power to influence job creation and the economy by means of an Executive Order to the Federal Reserve to raise or lower the interest rates. The amount of money in circulation and the interest rates affect the amount risks employers and companies are willing to take on say, building a new textile mill and hiring the needed number of workers. If the economy is stronger, companies are more willing to stomach the opportunity costs of hiring more employees because the marginal benefit will be higher as more people are willing to spend their money to consume the products and services.

Seriously, anyone who has taken more than 9th grade economics probably learned how one man (Greenspan) can make a difference on the economy and how that one man (Greenspan) advises another man (presently Bush the Usurper [it makes him sound like William the *******, which to me is funny]) to make economic policy.


Homosexuality is on the same level as drunkeness and pedophilia and lying about your homework, but the church is more ready to absolve those it seems.

To approach the original question: I am voting for Kerry because any other vote in this election would be voting against the future of the planet, any dreams I have had that require money to accomplish them, and against the future of public education in this country. I want those who inherit this country from us to live in a safer, more tolerant, and more intelligent world and with greater opportunity to be prosperous and strike down ignorance. I believe a vote for Bush would not only be counter to that but would enable the Right to cement their hold on America's hearts and minds in order to turn this country into a fanatical hotbed of Christian Fundamentalism, ultimately leading to Bush calling for an outright Crusade against all non-practicing Protestants, the Roman Catholic Church, and Islam.

...got a bit carried away.

That depends on what you believe. If you believe it's immoral and wrong, then it is something to be ashamed of. See my later paragraph about the "it's who they are" argument.



Again, that depends on what you believe. I believe that if the Bible says it's immoral and wrong, it is. I cannot force you to agree with me, but I believe what I believe.



You're entitled to your opinion.



I don't know whether they do or not; I never said one way or the other.



Because religion is (or should be) the center of my life. I shouldn't be dragging religion into anything; I shouldn't have to. It should be the focal point.



That's kind of getting into semantics again. A person is male or female; that's definitely a "who you are" trait. Their actions and practices, well, that's some of both, I suppose. Some people refer to one's occupation as who someone is, rather than what they do.

Either way, the "it's who they are, it's not their fault" argument is a play on words. You could make the same claim about other people who do other things that are wrong. It's a way of blaming someone (or something) else. I'm not saying that circumstances don't have any effect, but the same is true for people who do other immoral things; it doesn't make doing them ok.



One should love everyone, even the most evil of people. One should love people like Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden. One should pray for them, for a change of their hearts. However, one can love someone and still be ashamed of something they did or do. Don't you understand that?

How am I causing a boatload of problems in other people? Disagreeing with their practices and saying so? If that causes such serious psychological problems for them, maybe they aren't so sure of their practices in the first place.

Finally, I am tired of this claim of bigotry. The general definition of bigotry is intolerance. One can disagree passionately with something and still tolerate it. Hating someone because of their skin color, or where they are born, that's bigotry. Attacking and killing and hating people, that's bigotry. Saying that a behavior is immoral and wrong is not bigotry.





Let me see here: "You can still love someone and not accept their lifestyle, or what they do."

So, Freelancer, you are saying that statement is false? If you honestly believe that, then you do not know much about love. Love is not about agreeing with everything, or accepting everything. Love is not about liking.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

That's from I Corinthians chapter 13.



Which church are you referring to?



Has Bush suggested a crusade against non-Christian nations? Has Bush suggested war against all Islamic nations? Bush has only warred with or suggested war with nations that are run by predominately evil, repressive governments that support evil like terrorism. Your claims are illogical, false, and FUD.



Just slightly.

So you admit to not fully understanding the context and origin of their perceived "immorality", yet reserve your right to deem it immoral and something to be ashamed of? I respect your right to an opinion, but it seems ill-founded. But then again, how would prejudice exist without people judging things on face value only?




I wouldn't call you a bigot, no. But you are most certainly prejudiced: anyone reading what you have written so far could see that. What seems (to me personally) sadly ironic is your following Biblical quote(s):



Now, I must admit that I think your views are quite fundamentalist, but they are your views and as I said, I respect them. I also believe you've been hobbled in this argument; your main point of reference has been the Bible, a text famous for its contradictions. But these quotes, in light of your views toward lesbians, who are widely accepted in our modern culture...they don't ring true as quotes to support a Presidential argument with.

I am, of course, very welcome to being corrected/argued against/soundly beaten down by the hammer of fact and logic.

I admit to what? Huh?




You can call it prejudice if you want. But I believe in the word of God, and it makes it clear that homosexuality is wrong.

How is that ironic? Do you not understand that one can completely disagree with someone, even dislike someone, yet still love them? Jesus loved everyone, including sinners. With His love He brought people to salvation. Had He not loved sinners, he would have had no one to save.



The homosexuality topic isn't central to the Presidential topic of this thread; it was a subtopic, if you will. Other than the stances on gay marriage, that is; but that hasn't come up so far. But I'm sure you know where I stand on that one.



In some ways--at least, to non-believers--faith is not logical. Nor is it a hammer. It is a gentle, sometimes subtle, strength.

Your points make sense, blujay, it's fine I confess, I too am a Christian (though despite praying every night, I can't say I have convictions as strong as yours). I've always subscribed to the logic that it doesn't matter where your faith is placed, as long as you have faith, so to argue that you are wrong would be hypocritical of me...

But thank you for clarifying yourself anyway. You listened to my argument, aggressive though it was, and I'm indebted to you for it.

Two things:



I have never heard or seen references of Bush to Cheney's daughter's sexuality. In fact the only time I know of it being brought up by the administration was when Cheney was asked something about homosexuality and a part of his response was an acknowledgement that he had a homosexual daughter.

Kerry (and Edwards) undeniably used her sexuality for political purposes. They both brought it up in a debate where everything being said is for political purpose. Now, Kerry choosed to bring up his daughter even though he does not know her and had to presume what she thinks on the issue. You don't think it's reasonable for her parents to be upset when Kerry non-chalantly brings up their childs sexuality, arguably a persons most personal subject? And then I find it downright mean for them to be out there saying her parents are ashamed of her when they don't even know the family (and highly doubtful anyway since Cheney had already openly acknowledged it). Kerry said it for a reason and it was certainly political and doubfully an honorable reason.

Number two, you guys understand what these "surpluses" of the nineties were right? The government collecting more money than it was spending. How is that good? That was our money they had. Yay, overtaxation leads to surpluses in the government budget! It's not like our national debt went away during that time, which will never go away anyway.

Ok, I'm sorry, but I've only read the first and last pages of this page, and I didn't read everything in between. I just wanted to jump in on the first few issues, even thuogh they've already probably been covered.

[*]Bush is the first president in 70 something years to lose jobs. I don't know if that's really true...I mean...in 70 years he's the only one to lose jobs? Are we sure this isn't one of Kerry's statistics? We lost the WORLD TRADE CENTER...we're going to lose a few jobs. We had two wars. We're not a war-bent economy right now, so it might be a little natural to lose jobs. I don't know if bush is the ONLY one to lose jobs, but I can understand that we have lost them. [*]We are now in a 3 trillion dollar deficit (I think it’s that much…either way it’s in the trillions) *shrug* no comment. clinton put us in debt too. [*]Bush said in a speech and I quote “I truly am not that concerned about him (Osama Bin Laden). I know he’s on the run. …I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country.” I really think Bush was saying "Bin-laden isn't something to fear anymore the way we used to. he's on the run, he's still a threat, but we have troops looking for him and he isn't a gigantic threat to the US. Don't worry, we're going to get him, he won't hurt us anymore." [*]Bush took his eye off of Osama Bin Laden and suddenly attacks Iraq. He's just looking in two places at once. WE still have troops in afganistan and I think some in pakistan...pakistan might not let our troops in though I can't remember. [*]Osama Bin Laden (Al Qaeda) attacked America…Iraq did not. Don't vote for bush if you don't think his war on iraq was a good idea...you don't have to. [*]There are no WMD’s in Iraq, there is NO justification for war. Sadaam was still a madman, and they were working on the capability to develop them. [*]Bush rushed us into war without a plan (or a piss poor plan), without enough troops, knowledge, justification, and allies. (Even Colin Powell is disgusted!) who says he "rushed" the war? He prepared for it!!! He gathered people there 6ish months in advance...or maybe a couple months. I can't remember but he was working on it for awhile before he went in. I saw some documentary on TV that said that bush wanted to go after Iraq, but the September 11 deal pushed it back a ways. He certainly didn't RUSH the war. He has plenty of troops, people are getting sent there still today, the troop numbers are growing. He might have gone in on an assumption that Sadaam was developing WMD's, which he was at the least, looking at. And he didn't have allies because no one wanted to get involved. We did. If you don't agree with that, don't vote for bush. I think we did the right thing anyway, we helped a country out on the side, but we mainly got rid of a bad dictator who had been doing bad things for many years. [*]Saddam was not a threat, and even if he was, why not attack any of the other countries that have tyrants or WMDs in them? We should have let the UN inspectors finish their jobs. The UN inspectors were in there a long time. If they put any more work into it they would have been there for a year or two longer...on sadaam's leash. [*]Medicine is being blocked from Canada. That could help us, but Bush won’t allow it. Bush said that he did block it. He blocked it because he wanted to make sure it's safe. Kerry tried to throw that back in his face by saying "no, bush is lying, he DID block it." But Bush already said that. * Unneeded deaths, pointless war, horrible acts, large deficit, etc… George W. Bush and his administration have left America in ruins…. So my question is, do you REALLY think John Kerry can do worse?! Are you worse or better off since the past 4 years have gone by? Kerry lies. he cheats. He says that people play games when they state a fact. "Bush is just playing games with numbers" EX: He says things like "I'll do what we need to do to toughen up our borders with Mexico because bush hasn't got the job done." Bush said that the borders were stronger than when he was a governer in texas. If the borders are stronger than before, then that means that Kerry either plans on strengthening the borders incredibly, or that he's just saying that bush has done a terrible job because kerry has a "plan" (he has alot of those that aren't described) to fix or do something. What is his plan to fix it? to strengthen it? He just says that he's going to toughen up the borders, what the hell does that mean? Are our guys going to have a minimum standard of overly-beefy/muscular size who work for security down there? And what was with the last presidential debate? "I'm glad that the three of us are all married, that's good...maybe mine being the best *laugh* *blank stare on bush's face* <<< I'll bet bush was pissed there. Also, "I respect the gay/lesbian community, my opponant's VC has a gay daughter." Why couldn't he say that "I know a gay person from south dakota' or something, why say he knew one involved with bush? Politics, that's why. Things like that...he just subtlely points the finger at bush. That's not respectful at all. Bush doesn't do that, he states the fact, points out kerry's flaws, and dodges the flaming balls that kerry keeps throwing at him.[/*]

That's a good point on the surplus Wookie!

Maybe we should just destroy America and give everyone a break...

erm... lets see possible anti-bush issues and one I think missed was the fact that he had chances to stop Osama's attacks, or at least thats how it seems to me.

Also I cannot think what this thread was written to accomplish, no one has actually said why they would vote for Bush or Kerry while stating plausible facts and to look deeper thats probably impossible. Its all opinion! No one will change there minds and the insulting bush voters from the off was not a clever plan.

Also with all the corruption in American government maybe its best to just have wild guesses... oh wait you lot are! HA!

So that's why you're voting for Bush, I suppose.

**** NO!!!

Me hates bush

How so?



"All the corruption"?

Wow. Once again Sine is the only one with anything of real value or substance to post.

HIS POSTS ARE LEGITIMATELY INTERESTING. YOU MIGHT ALL TRY READING THEM INSTEAD OF TOTALLY DISREGARDING THEM.

And no I'm not just blindly supporting him because he's voting for Bush. I think he's the only damn one on this forum who actually gets the mideast situation.

Where is SAJN_Master's response?

More impordantly, where IS Sajn? He hasnt been around...odd

And what the heck does Kerry think he's doing with that soccer ball?

Why does every one keep forgetting that the changes that president makes, take at least 4 years to do anything at all? The good economy was the result of Regan's and Bush I's policies. Economist’s knew for certain the economy would take down turn around 2000, way before the election even. 9/11 just made it worse.

Nader 04'

politics makes me sooo horny.. visit my webcam @ presidentialSLUTS.com


good times good times:cool:

I'm not laughing at all

TJ, that is sooo off the point, sick, and unkosher. Repent.

don't you people watch rvb???

come on now..

I don't care where you got it from, it was still dumb.

BW, your the one who said that sick thing about wanting to throw up and fart at th... Man this is so far off subject.:rolleyes:

Yes, because everyone knows all economic indicators wait exactly 4 years before showing the direction of the markets. Reganomics did what it was supposed to do, outspend the Soviets, other than that it was awful because of the incredible trade deficits and government spending deficits it put us in. You know why Clinton had to cut all those military bases and programs? Because Regan spent like a madman building a base wherever he could and filling it up with personnel that Clinton had to cut in order to bring the Federal Budget into order because Fiscal Responsibility was a big Republican thing during the 90s and Clinton had to deal with the Republican House.

Bush Sr... I would say he was nothing more than Regan's lapdog and the only thing to say about his presidency is Operation Desert Storm. However, I wasnt old enough to care about politics then so I've grown up during the Clinton-era and have seen things from before that point in retrospect, and hindsight is always 20/20.