Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JBA on August 19, 2004, 04:01:21 PM
-
As a citizen of the US and therefore an Employer of public officials, I would like for the Democrats on the board to present to me your candidate for the job of President.
I already have a person hired and therefore you cannot badmouth my previous choice, this will not get you hired.
So tell me why I should hire your candidate, John Kerry.
-
Apart from being on a fixed term contract, the present employee may well be guilty of gross misconduct which merits a summary dismissal (without notice).
Employees who work in conflict of interest, who perform poorly and whose CV makes terrible reading really ought not to have their contracts renewed.
Perhaps you ought to tell us why a renewal of the present employee's contract is in order? :)
Ravs
p.s. I do understand that he has a great future after this period of employment of running further organisations into the ground.
;)
-
Come on JBA, you know the dems tried to stop selling Kerry, all they can do now is try to convince you not to vote Bush. Too funny.
Ravells just illustrated that point better than I could have hoped too.
dago
-
Originally posted by ravells
Apart from being on a fixed term contract, the present employee may well be guilty of gross misconduct which merits a summary dismissal (without notice).
Employees who work in conflict of interest, who perform poorly and whose CV makes terrible reading really ought not to have their contracts renewed.
Perhaps you ought to tell us why a renewal of the present employee's contract is in order? :)
Ravs
p.s. I do understand that he has a great future after this period of employment of running further organisations into the ground.
;)
WOW I realize you are from the UK and all and your application really doesnt count
But dodging a question and then answering said question with a question will never get you hired in the US.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Come on JBA, you know the dems tried to stop selling Kerry, all they can do now is try to convince you not to vote Bush. Too funny.
Ravells just illustrated that point better than I could have hoped too.
dago
why do we not spend more time selling Kerry? very simple, the fact that he isn't Bush is more than enough. to point out specifically why Kerry would be more qualified would just be bragging.
the country was in damn good shape before Bush ran it into the ground (I guess thats where his business experience helped him find the fastest and most efficient way to deplete funds with no gain).
to just undo whatever we can that he has done would be an ideal plan.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
why do we not spend more time selling Kerry? very simple, the fact that he isn't Bush is more than enough. to point out specifically why Kerry would be more qualified would just be bragging.
the country was in damn good shape before Bush ran it into the ground (I guess thats where his business experience helped him find the fastest and most efficient way to deplete funds with no gain).
to just undo whatever we can that he has done would be an ideal plan.
wow another one.
anyone but Bush.
What if anyone doesnt cut it? what makes kerry so speacial?
truth is....without mentioning Bush you cant answer those questions.
OTOH....I dont need to mention Kerry to define Bush.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
What if anyone doesnt cut it?
maybe he won't, at least I have a chance. we already know that Bush don't cut it.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
maybe he won't, at least I have a chance. we already know that Bush don't cut it.
so you'd vote for bozo the clown to the office of the presidency? What about David Duke if he was a dem?
I dont see how you can just blindly replace somone just cause you think ANYONE can do a better job.
How do you know they will do a better job than Bush if you know nothing about them?
again what does Kerry have to offer other than the fact that his name is not George W. Bush?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
so you'd vote for bozo the clown to the office of the presidency? What about David Duke if he was a dem?
I dont see how you can just blindly replace somone just cause you think ANYONE can do a better job.
How do you know they will do a better job than Bush if you know nothing about them?
again what does Kerry have to offer other than the fact that his name is not George W. Bush?
Its easy, I would rather put bozo the clown in, on the smallest chance he will be better then the ******* in there now. And continue to not reelect anyone for more than one term untill they start getting better.
At work you don't keep a person that you don't think can do the job becasue you are afraid the next guy will be worse. You keep canning them untill you find a good one,
btw I will be voting for Kerry this time. and I will bet I will vote against him in 4 years too.
-
Originally posted by Trell
Its easy, I would rather put bozo the clown in, on the smallest chance he will be better then the ******* in there now. And continue to not reelect anyone for more than one term untill they start getting better.
At work you don't keep a person that you don't think can do the job becasue you are afraid the next guy will be worse. You keep canning them untill you find a good one,
btw I will be voting for Kerry this time. and I will bet I will vote against him in 4 years too.
You can do alot of damage in 4 years. So if there is a 1 in 99% chance that a canidate will do a better chance than the current president he/she has your vote? That's a big gamble when it comes to the fate of the US.
What makes kerry better than Bush?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
You can do alot of damage in 4 years. So if there is a 1 in 99% chance that a canidate will do a better chance than the current president he/she has your vote? That's a big gamble when it comes to the fate of the US.
What makes kerry better than Bush?
the odds that he'll do a good job may be 1 in 99% (not sure exactly what that means mathematically but it's your quote. is it 99% chance he'll do good, a 1% chance, or are the odds 99 to 1)
whatever that comes to I could except it, well worth the risk. even if the odds are 100 to 1 that he'd be a good president, the odds that he'd be better than Bush are just about a sure thing.
even if he sets out to completely screw the country, at least we get a bit of a break while he learns how to do it most effectively. on the other hand Bush has 4 years of experience at screwing us and many plans that are already in the works. at least Kerry (if he where to be as bad as you seem to think) would have to start from scratch.
I really can't argue with your first sentence though. Bush has surely proved you right there.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
the odds that he'll do a good job may be 1 in 99% (not sure exactly what that means mathematically but it's your quote. is it 99% chance he'll do good, a 1% chance, or are the odds 99 to 1)
whatever that comes to I could except it, well worth the risk. even if the odds are 100 to 1 that he'd be a good president, the odds that he'd be better than Bush are just about a sure thing.
even if he sets out to completely screw the country, at least we get a bit of a break while he learns how to do it most effectively. on the other hand Bush has 4 years of experience at screwing us and many plans that are already in the works. at least Kerry (if he where to be as bad as you seem to think) would have to start from scratch.
I really can't argue with your first sentence though. Bush has surely proved you right there.
what I meant was a 1% chance out of 100 actually but thanks for the correction.
So you think bush is that bad that any level of destruction to this country is that much better?????????
we can trade one idiot for a worse idiot...its only 4 years.....Bush only invaded Iraq....maybe Kerry can be worse?
you can regurgitate this over and over again.
What you cant/wont tell me is what makes kerry better than Bush other than the fact that he's not Bush?
-
" You can do alot of damage in 4 years. "
Gunslinger you are correct indeed. I submit this President and this Administration as proof.
No way they get my vote.
Frodo
-
Originally posted by Frodo
" You can do alot of damage in 4 years. "
Gunslinger you are correct indeed. I submit this President and this Administration as proof.
No way they get my vote.
Frodo
And if John Kerry is worse you vote for him?
-
Well since I can't see into the future as you can, then I will have to base my vote on what I have seen so far from this President and his administration.
So my vote goes to Kerry, and it is not a hard decision at all.
Four more years of this administration scares the heck out of me.
BTW I consider myself an Independent, and have never voted for anything based on political party loyalty. There are way too many people who vote strictly by party on all sides, consequences be damned. This really hurts the country more than we realize I think.
Frodo
-
Originally posted by JBA
As a citizen of the US and therefore an Employer of public officials, I would like for the Democrats on the board to present to me your candidate for the job of President.
I already have a person hired and therefore you cannot badmouth my previous choice, this will not get you hired.
So tell me why I should hire your candidate, John Kerry.
This coming from a Boston-type!?!?
I was at the Red Sox/White Sox game at Fenway on Saturday... sitting in the bar with a couple buddies waiting for the game - talking to a few people... one conversation went like this:
"Whaaaaare aaawh you fraawhm?"
"Sorry... what?"
"Oh yooou aaawh soo naawt from Baaaawstawn."
"Nah, Philly."
"Well, aaat least its nawt Teeexaaaawhhhxs."
:D
Dem (no pun) buggers hate Bush up there. Never seen so many Kerry stickers as I did in rainbow world.
-
Originally posted by Frodo
Well since I can't see into the future as you can, then I will have to base my vote on what I have seen so far from this President and his administration.
So my vote goes to Kerry, and it is not a hard decision at all.
Four more years of this administration scares the heck out of me.
BTW I consider myself an Independent, and have never voted for anything based on political party loyalty. There are way too many people who vote strictly by party on all sides, consequences be damned. This really hurts the country more than we realize I think.
Frodo
OK so you are saying that ANYONE is better than Bush because you obviously know nothing about Kerry. You think a crack potato would make a better president?
Keep in mind here while I realize your hatred of Bush runs deep I'm challenging the kerry supporters of this board to tell me ONE GOOD THING....just one about John Kerry that makes him a good president. The only condition is that you can't compare him to Bush nore mention Bush in any way.
I could sit here and tell you all about Bush's good accomplishments while president. But none of you can tell me ONE THING about Kerry that makes him stand out as an Ideal canidate.....you elect him blindly soley to beat Bush.
-
And this is why I appreciate the electoral college system.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
the country was in damn good shape before Bush ran it into the ground (I guess thats where his business experience helped him find the fastest and most efficient way to deplete funds with no gain).
do you suppose maybe that 9/11 might have had any help in affecting the economy? Nor do you mention the billions paid out to fight a war on terror that was brought here on the last administration's watch...
capt... think your statements through before you post... crap like that only makes you look ignorant.
-
The economy doesnt just decide its time to plunge for no other reason than bush takes office. Clinton helped.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
we can trade one idiot for a worse idiot...its only 4 years.....Bush only invaded Iraq....maybe Kerry can be worse?
thats an awful big and expensive (in cash, lives, and new enemies created) 'only'.
but in truth it's not really an only so much as an 'and a'.
the unwarranted and fraudulently represented war in Iraq, and
the suspension of workplace safety rules. (basically required that if you hire someone to do a certain job in a certain environment, you have a obligation to take reasonable care to make sure that the workplace doesn't kill, maim, cause illness or otherwise debilitate the workers). and
his inability to talk in complete sentences, or even string a series of words together in something remotely resembling a clear thought on virtually any subject. and
his criticism of other presidents reaction to terrorism, when in fact the intel about the perpetrators of the attack on the Cole came in on his watch and he did nothing. and
the appointment of some of the sleaziest and soulless members of any administration I've lived through. people that actually make me look back and think that Janet Reno might not have been completely evil. and
his constant vocal support of issues that he (or his administration on his behalf) in action torpedoes. talk about flip flop. "I'm for lower health-care costs. but you can't buy your drugs in Canada for half the price because my rich friends won't get richer", "I'm for states rights and less big gov't. unless the voters in your state overwhelmingly vote to allow the use of effective and affordable medical marijuana, or vote for the right of hopeless patients living out their final days in pain to choose to end their suffering" (as a side note both of these 'personal choice', 'less government interference' would also help lower health-care costs). and
he conflicts himself at every turn and the only time he is consistent and decisive is when he is screwing us (unless of course you are wealthy, then he's your bud). and
his tax cuts fell heavy for the very wealthy and virtually down the line became lower as the fell to lower income brackets. also the lower the income bracket the tax cut effected, the sooner it 'sunsets' or expires. the richer the benefiting group the more permanent these cuts are. and
screwing up a long trend of paying down our debt buy cutting taxes of people who by no means seemed to be struggling, starting an unnecessary and expensive war, and using this war to funnel our tax dollars into the pockets of his vice president and other wealth military contractors. all while preaching the republican line of responsible spending and less gov't. (flip flop) and
at his campaign appearances here in town he went to a public high school, he had a hand picked audience who asked him canned questions. even as the president of the US he couldn't fill the bleachers of a high school gym to more than 1/4 capacity. I guess it's hard to find that many people who you can be sure won't ask you anything that you might have to answer truthfully or back up later. meanwhile Kerry had 100 times or more the size of the audience, he welcomed any who came to hold their banners and say their piece, and he addressed many of these issues that the audience brought up, all with about 100th of the security (you'd think the Dem would need the security, the Reps have the guns right?) and
he has had more vacation time than any other president in our nations history. he freely admits and even boasts that he doesn't watch the news and relies on his advisor's to tell him whats going on. he's an isolationist president (not as a national policy but as a personal one) who is completely out of touch with the vast majority of American voters, and doesn't see the middle class or poor as part of 'his America' and
there's a start for you. you don't hear much of the other issues since it seems trivial to bring up, what with them all paling before Iraq. you can't get him to listen to the public on any issue (unless they pay the fees for a 'face to face'), so how in the hell would he hope to represent us.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
do you suppose maybe that 9/11 might have had any help in affecting the economy? Nor do you mention the billions paid out to fight a war on terror that was brought here on the last administration's watch...
capt... think your statements through before you post... crap like that only makes you look ignorant.
the war on terror (Afganistan) wasn't all that expensive.
the war for proffit in Iraq was much more expensive. and you really aren't in need of the review on how Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism against the US, do you?
-
Well capt. All I still havnt heard ONE thing from you on why Kerry would make a good president?
-
Figure it out Gunslinger, Voss will find the Holy Grail before they can find one good reason that Kerry would make a good President.
Saddest thing I have ever seen, one of the two main political parties putting someone up for President that even they don't believe in, or can support for any good reason.
dago
-
Originally posted by ravells
Apart from being on a fixed term contract, the present employee may well be guilty of gross misconduct which merits a summary dismissal (without notice).
Employees who work in conflict of interest, who perform poorly and whose CV makes terrible reading really ought not to have their contracts renewed.
Perhaps you ought to tell us why a renewal of the present employee's contract is in order? :)
Ravs
p.s. I do understand that he has a great future after this period of employment of running further organisations into the ground.
;)
You didnt answer the question.
And the answer you did give is debatable at best.
You only stated why you thought the curent employee should be released,
You didnt explain why Kerry should b hired to replace him.
And while little is ever mentioned about them there are other candidates for the position
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
why do we not spend more time selling Kerry? very simple, the fact that he isn't Bush is more than enough. to point out specifically why Kerry would be more qualified would just be bragging.
the country was in damn good shape before Bush ran it into the ground (I guess thats where his business experience helped him find the fastest and most efficient way to deplete funds with no gain).
to just undo whatever we can that he has done would be an ideal plan.
Brag away.
Kerry has been in public office now for over 20 years.
Name 3 significant things he's accomplished in that time.
The "Countries" Economy was well on its downturn well before the election ever took place.
Funds were primarily depleated after 911 to meet and deal with the terrorest threat.
With a Democratic majority in congress approval I might add.
None of your arguments hold water
-
lets all vote libatrian why don't we. Since the canidate is not bush but yet not a Left wing nutbag i think it is?:confused: im bad at this kinda stuff:)
-
Nice post Apathy! :)
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
This coming from a Boston-type!?!?
I was at the Red Sox/White Sox game at Fenway on Saturday... sitting in the bar with a couple buddies waiting for the game - talking to a few people... one conversation went like this:
"Whaaaaare aaawh you fraawhm?"
"Sorry... what?"
"Oh yooou aaawh soo naawt from Baaaawstawn."
"Nah, Philly."
"Well, aaat least its nawt Teeexaaaawhhhxs."
:D
Dem (no pun) buggers hate Bush up there. Never seen so many Kerry stickers as I did in rainbow world.
moved here from some where else maybe, We all don't buy houses across the street from our parents.
thanks for the stereotyping.
-
I believe I have proved my point. You cannot present to me a reason why I should vote/hire your candidate. Coming to a job interview and telling the “boss” that he/she made the wrong decision the first time will never get the job.
As a “job placement agent” you have to sell me you choice.
CAN YOU DO IT?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
The "Countries" Economy was well on its downturn well before the election ever took place.
Exactly !
The NASDAQ lost 50 percent of its value in the last year of the Clinton administration. The fact that it didn't signal a tech bust to the previous administration is mind boggling. They bragged about the greatest economy in 50 years knowing full well it was a house of cards.
The Enron's, WorldCom's' Global Crossing's and Tyco's were built under the Clinton administration and popped soon after the Current administration took office. What did the prior administration do to correct the situation while they were in office?
In 8 years the Clinton administration saw the first world trade center, Kobe barracks, Cole and two embassy attacks and the best it could muster was a few cruise missiles as a response. The 9/11 attack cost the US government 140 billion + not counting the lost jobs or tax base of the tenets and people who worked there. A bit of long term vision by the previous administration "may" have prevented or lessened the economic severity not to mention the loss of life.
-
Well said Krusher.
dago
-
Originally posted by Krusher
The Enron's, WorldCom's' Global Crossing's and Tyco's were built under the Clinton administration and popped soon after the Current administration took office. What did the prior administration do to correct the situation while they were in office?
true, Bush's friends at enron did that while Clinton was president.
Originally posted by Krusher
In 8 years the Clinton administration saw the first world trade center, Kobe barracks, Cole and two embassy attacks and the best it could muster was a few cruise missiles as a response. The 9/11 attack cost the US government 140 billion + not counting the lost jobs or tax base of the tenets and people who worked there. A bit of long term vision by the previous administration "may" have prevented or lessened the economic severity not to mention the loss of life.
the intel on who was responsable for the attack on the Cole came in after Bush took office. he had NO responce, none what so ever, he just went on vacation.
how come his lack of action is seen as 'waiting for the right moment' but any democrats lack of military responce is seen as letting them push us around?
as far as Bush leading us in a 'war on terror'. how many resources were devirted from the war on terror to fund his revinue scheme in Iraq?
-
Clinton was pretty chummy with Enron, too, to say nothing of Global Crossing, etc.
-
good post capt. apathy :)
-
Still no responses to the question I asked. Why should I vote for Kerry.
You either have an answer or you don't.
-
Originally posted by JBA
moved here from some where else maybe, We all don't buy houses across the street from our parents.
thanks for the stereotyping.
Struck a nerve somewhere, apparently. :aok
-
the intel on who was responsable for the attack on the Cole came in after Bush took office. he had NO responce, none what so ever, he just went on vacation.
So you think the President stops working just because he isn't in Washington?
Is there a law saying he can't do his job from somewhere else?
If I could wield my power from somewhere else I would.
D.C. sux
-
Originally posted by Coolridr
So you think the President stops working just because he isn't in Washington?
Is there a law saying he can't do his job from somewhere else?
If I could wield my power from somewhere else I would.
D.C. sux
way to miss the point. :aok you barely missed that one.
the point is Bush says even though 9/11 happened on his watch that Clinton's lack of response was to blame. while the truth is Clinton did respond to previous attacks. the fact is that Bush was in office when we knew who attacked the Cole, HE is the one who allowed it to go un-answered. maybe he's right and the 9/11 attacks weren't caused by a lack of diligence but the terrorists lack of fear of reprisals, but if thats true it would seem that his lack of any response to the Cole would send more of a message that we are now a prime target, than the Clinton responses he said didn't send a strong enough message.
I also find it odd that Bush somehow works up the nerve to bring up Kerry's attendance record on the intelligence committee, while himself being the most absent president in history and continuing with his every word to re-enforce my belief that he wouldn't know intelligence if it bit him on the prettythang.
another interesting thing that I find sad is the republicans logic in general (definitely not limited to Bush). they would have you believe that while they happened on his watch Bush wasn't responsible for 9/11 or the crippling of the US economy, and loss of jobs. not his fault because the stage was set before he had a hand in it, the course already determined and we're lucky he was here or it would have been worse.
these same people would have you believe that in spite of 40 years of cold war and all of the efforts of our military, diplomatic, and espionage communities and the internal problems of their own making that it was Ronald Regan who single handedly rid the world of the soviet union.
he also, some how, in the first 5 minutes after he was sworn into office managed to free the hostages that Carter couldn't. 5 minutes, damn thats some kinda magic.
the argument gets made (when you point to the absurdity) that it was the fear of how he would run things that caused the captors to spontaneously surrender their hostages.
however the same people who make this argument can't seem to see as remotely feasible that one of the factors that could have contributed to our economy's failing (before 9/11 dealt the final shove) is the fear of how Bush would run things, the lack of confidence (upon finding he would be president) that the American economy would thrive under his leadership, and the resulting removal of investments to a safer venue.
why do they continue the absurd claims that anything that finishes well on their watch got done because they seceded to do what those before them had failed, and anything that finishes badly was just the natural and unstoppable result of their predecessors policies? my guess is that they continue to get about 50% of this countries citizens to fall for it, no need to change to a more logical stance when so many are buying this one.
-
Originally posted by JBA
Still no responses to the question I asked. Why should I vote for Kerry.
You either have an answer or you don't.
Why did you vote for Bush in 2000?
If you go by experience then Gore had Bush beat.
But since thats not the case then what is the point of this question?
You voted for Bush either because you are:
1. A republican or
2. You liked him over Gore.
So at that time why did you hire Bush and you will have your answer.
-
I voted for Bush because of the things he did as Gov of Texas, and because he pledged to bring honor back to the White House. Other than a few trade and immigration issues, he has done exactly what he said he would, and has been a strong and confident leader when we need one.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
why do we not spend more time selling Kerry? very simple, the fact that he isn't Bush is more than enough. to point out specifically why Kerry would be more qualified would just be bragging.
the country was in damn good shape before Bush ran it into the ground (I guess thats where his business experience helped him find the fastest and most efficient way to deplete funds with no gain).
to just undo whatever we can that he has done would be an ideal plan.
Capt, I think you need to heed yer own sig line. This is one of the most trite responces I've ever read. Right out of the DNC Handbook Of Comebacks.:lol
-
Originally posted by Krusher
The Enron's, WorldCom's' Global Crossing's and Tyco's were built under the Clinton administration and popped soon after the Current administration took office. What did the prior administration do to correct the situation while they were in office?
Do you really want to know?
>>
By the late 1990s, corporations had put the squeeze on auditing fees, and consulting, which had once been a small fraction of the accounting industry's business, became the main profit center. Arthur Levitt, then (Clinton's) chairman of the SEC, saw a conflict of interest undermining tough audits: accountants feared losing lucrative consulting deals if their audits offended corporate clients. He proposed a solution to the Big Five accounting firms -- that they stop doing major consulting jobs for their audit clients.
Three of the Big Five firms -- KPMG, Deloitte & Touche, and Arthur Andersen -- saw Levitt's proposal for "auditor independence" as a threat to their entire business model. To block Levitt, the accountants turned to friends on Capitol Hill such as Rep. Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, a powerful House Republican who chaired the committee with oversight of the SEC. [Read a letter from the House committee to Arthur Levitt.] Tauzin had received nearly $300,000 from the accounting industry since 1989 -- even though he never had a serious challenger for his seat. In their war against Levitt, the accounting firms unleashed a massive lobbying campaign, spending nearly $23 million in campaign contributions to both parties.
Among the flood of mail Levitt received pressuring him to back off from the proposal was a letter from Kenneth Lay, the influential CEO of Enron. "Ken Lay wrote me a letter during the debate over the issue of auditor independence," Levitt tells FRONTLINE, "urging me not to proceed with this rulemaking because his relationship with his accountant, Arthur Andersen, has been such that consulting was terribly important to the well being of Enron."
Ultimately, with Congress going so far as to threaten the SEC's funding, Levitt was forced to back down. He modified the rule so that auditing firms could keep their consulting business if they disclosed potential conflicts of interest to corporate audit committees.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/regulation/congress/index.html#3 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/regulation/congress/index.html#3)
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
true, Bush's friends at enron did that while Clinton was president.
the intel on who was responsable for the attack on the Cole came in after Bush took office. he had NO responce, none what so ever, he just went on vacation.
how come his lack of action is seen as 'waiting for the right moment' but any democrats lack of military responce is seen as letting them push us around?
as far as Bush leading us in a 'war on terror'. how many resources were devirted from the war on terror to fund his revinue scheme in Iraq?
You made a point about the economy in an earlier post.
the country was in damn good shape before Bush ran it into the ground (I guess thats where his business experience helped him find the fastest and most efficient way to deplete funds with no gain).
I guess this is Hijacking the thread but, you ignored my reply by looking for crumbs to feed on.
The NASDAQ lost 50 percent of its value in the last year of the Clinton administration. Why did this happen if the economy prior to Bush was so solid?
The Enron's, WorldCom's' Global Crossing's and Tyco's were built under the Clinton administration.
How did any Enron contribution to Bush affect the Clinton justice department? Better yet did the failure of two of the largest companies in America affect the economy at all in your opinion?
The 9/11 attack cost the US government 140 billion + not counting the lost jobs or tax base of the tenets and people who worked there. Did this affect the economy or not?
You made a huge blanket statement that Bush ran the economy down. By your reply I am assuming the examples I noted had NOTHING to do with the economy what so ever.
-
All I have read is, He's not Bush.
Great job guys.:lol
You have nothing and will be summarily ignored from now untill November 2nd.
-
Originally posted by JBA
All I have read is, He's not Bush.
Great job guys.:lol
You have nothing and will be summarily ignored from now untill November 2nd.
While Im not particularly enthralled by Bush.
I havent seen a single thing in Kerry that would indicate he might even remotely do any better.
All I've seen form anyone isabout "I can do this I will do that yet" reveals no actual plan on how, whatsoever.
Well hell, I can do that too.
Why dont you all just vote me in instead.
My Three big campaign promises are as follows.
1- I will have all traffic lights removed from all roads. Meaning no more red lights
2-- We will have minimum speed limits instead of maximums
3--- I will get a bill passed that makes it illegal for any woman to use the "I have a headache or similar excuse"
To here husband.
I figure #3 should get me 75% of the married mens votes right off the bat
Oh and the punishment for such infractions would be death or at the very least a lifetime revocation of any and all credit cards or other shopping privileges
Which should garner me another 10%