Ok, I am seeing that you've missed my point. Those articles that you have brought into this are only the words of Kerry posted on the internet. As far as I am concerned, you are bringing in biased information. I would like for you to bring in an article that is not just about Bush or Kerry.

Look at my articles about the economy (I changed one because I had made an error in citing my sources). One talks about the economic recession coming about in 1999. It does mention Bush, but the main nature of the article is economic numbers. The other is a GDP report and has NOTHING to do with politics. This is what I mean by non biased information. Politics has a way of smearing the truth. Give me a economic report from a credited and independent source to back up your claims. All I want is non biased proof.

This is why I want non biased stuff. You went and claimed Bush lost 6-7 million jobs during his current term when Kerry's own website says 2.8 million. Now USATODAY says that number is 2.2 million job loses. Bloomburg, an orginaztion devoted to business and investing, says 1.8 million.

Who do you believe is up to you. I WILL NOT take the word of Bush or Kerry because they are only going to give you info that supports their side of things. THat is where independent resources will tell who's stretching the truth.

I'll write more later. It's time for bed

SSG Doody

-----------------------------------------
Delta210 you beat me to the punch...damn you j/k it's all good

Basically I vote values, the supreme court is getting away with murder already, and if Kerry's when, the morals of this Nation are going to cease to exist. At least Bush seems to have a half-way decent set of vaules and lives by them. Plus I like him because he's a Christan. As far as the econmy goes, I live in a small town, and my Father is unemploied to due his job going overseas. He'd been with the company for almost 18 years, and was almost retiring age. Yeah I'm not happy with that, but I don't think Kerry would do any better, and I do think Bush is doing the best he can. Oh and for the one's that have been saying they like Kerry, I have just one little question. Where's he hidding his illegal Chinese Communitst Assult Rife? If he breaks the laws as a congressman while lying through his teeth about it. What's he going to do as president. Oh and as a person from North Carolina, Sen John Edwards is really full of it too. Especially on education issues. He wouldn't know how to fix the education system if it bit him in the A$$! I've been in public schools all my life and I'm currently studying to be a teacher. Since Bush passed the no child left behind act, which basicallys lets the states figure out how to better their public schools, North Carolina School Systems, have been terrible. All while Edwards has been in office. Don't listen to a thing he says about education.

The economy was already entering into recession when Clinton left office. Bush inherited that, and the 9/11 attacks pushed it further along. As to jobs going overseas, you can't blame the government, much, for the actions of corporations. For each job that leaves the country, there is that much less going to government in taxes. That doesn't help the government any. Besides, it was Clinton who signed NAFTA opened the borders for jobs to leave the country.

This one comes stright from the wires.

Kerry defended himself against continuous Republican accusations that he has shifted his position on Iraq, saying he has had only "one position" on the issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ues/index.html

----------------------------------------

Kerry supporter or not, everyone knows that Kerry's claim of "one position" on Iraq is totally 100% not true.

I want someone to challlenge me on this one please....

I will vote Bush for the for the following reasons.

I feel he did an outstanding job following 9/11.
I feel that he has the fotitude to defend the nations interests without being overly concerned about what some of our "allies" think.
I cannot and will not vote for a canidate who cannot decide which side of the issue he is on (Kerry).

Originally Posted by Red_Army

"Only George W. Bush could celebrate over a record budget deficit of $422 billion, a loss of 1.6 million jobs and Medicare premiums that are up by a record 17 percent,"Kerry said. "W stands for wrong -- the wrong direction for America."
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT....ap/index.html

This is gonna hurt.

When were those Medicare premium increases voted on? Did Kerry vote for or against the increase? You do know that the president cannot raise the premiums by himself, right?

Next, there is wide disparity between the payroll survey and the household survey, regarding job creation. One includes self-employed people (among others), the other doesn't. Do you think it's fair to include self-employed in the number of jobs created?

Finally, the deficit is out of hand. This is a part of the administration I really dislike. He boosted fed funding in education, without any real proof that it pays off. He boosted spending on veteran's benefits and prescription drug benefits for senior citizens. At the same time, he's fighting two wars and buying additional oil to bring our national strategic oil reserve to a billion barrels. Now, I understand the need for these things, but is this the right time to do it?

So, my question would be what programs would you cut? Education? Vet benefits? Farm subsidies? Highway funds? Would you cut and run from Afghanistan and/or Iraq? (Medicare is not considered because it is not discretionary spending, per se)

Originally Posted by Red_Army

"Here in Cincinnati, he promised to lead a strong coalition, but he failed to build the kind of broad, strong, real coalition, and he rushed to war without a plan to win the peace," Kerry said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT...wed/index.html

Why mock the contributions of 31 allies? UK, Poles, Aussies, Italians, Tongans, Albanians, etc. contrinuted what they could. Not all have the economy to sustain protracted deployment or the military to send thousands of troops. Yet, they provide assistance.

Also, it's instructive to note the strong NATO presence in the Afghan War. Had Bush truly been as disasterous as charged, I doubt the French and Germans would be assisting us in Afghanistan. Yet they are.

Iraq was a different matter and had less to do with Bush than economics.

Originally Posted by Doody

This one comes stright from the wires.

Kerry defended himself against continuous Republican accusations that he has shifted his position on Iraq, saying he has had only "one position" on the issue.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ues/index.html

Link
(Interview about a year ago)

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that we should withdraw American troops from Iraq?

SEN. KERRY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe we should put more American troops in Iraq?

SEN. KERRY: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?

SEN. KERRY: No. I think we should increase it.

MR. RUSSERT: Increase funding.

SEN. KERRY: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: By how much?

SEN. KERRY: By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.

Nah, he hasn't moved much.

Bush can not take the blame for the Budget deficit, if anything it goes back to the days of FDR, when deificit spending first started and it never really ended. Only Congress can approbe the spending of public funds, Bush recommends a budget, Congress makes the final changes.

And guess why we could not get a coalition to support going into Iraq, to many of other members of the UN, most notably Russia and France, were exploiting the Oil for Food program, France was selling illegal arms to Iraq and Rissia still had lots of money owed to them buy Iraq from the days before Desert Storm. France had 9,000+ oil contracts with Iraq, Russia had over 7,000, China had 2,000, the UK had 8 (4 of which were being over ruled by the UN) and the US had one. Hmmm, who had more to lose from an over throw the the Iraqi government?

9/11 was the dagger through the heart of the economy, that and Republican tax cuts had the Bush administration backed against a wall already, if a Democrat was in office on 9/11 the taxes still would have been higher, the tax cuts would have been made after 9/11 to cushion the fall of the economy as much as possible, but not near as large a cut as the Bush administration made in all.

Im really suprised some of you millitary guys will vote for bush since he cut hazad pay in half.

Originally Posted by Stafford911

Im really suprised some of you millitary guys will vote for bush since he cut hazad pay in half.

Where do you get your news from? I will ask again for a source to back up a claim I was in Iraq and I will set the record straight. My combat pay went up in April 2003 and was back dated into 2002. Here are the details

Hazardous Duty pay went from $100 to $225 a month
Seperation pay for married soldeirs went from $100 to $250 a month
Hostile fire pay increased from $50 to 150 a month

Here are sources to back me up
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/...combatzone.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/20/pf/s..._military_pay/

BTW, the Pentagon wanted to cut combat pay in SEP 03 but never did.

Can people at least research something before they say it? I am getting sick of dealing wih false claims. I know Kerry said Bush cut benefits but the real story is that the benefits remain the same.

Bush has made the largest increases in Military spending since Reagan, and in believe it was in April that their were a record number of promotions for NCO's.