john5746

Actually, I'm not caught up in the lie and character stuff like others. I think Bush, Gore and Kerry have good enough character. Gore suffered because of Clinton. It is a smokescreen mostly. Yeah, I don't want another Clinton scandel, but I will take it over a bad economy and mistaken war any day.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0602-04.htm Sorry, last one requires registration, this is same thing

http://www.baltimoresun.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=Bush+Shines&target=article&Go.x=7&Go.y=7 Then goto Archive1990 tab.

Listen to President Bush in December 2001 explaining publicly how he learned about the terrorist attacks three months before: "I was in Florida. And ... I was sitting outside [an elementary school] classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on, and I used to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.'" This account is obviously false since network cameras were not trained on the towers at the time the first airliner hit; it was only later that amateur video of this event was broadcast. Note: Not sure if this is true, lifted from the Baltimore Sun

Important can be defined many ways. Just surviving is important

People tend to throw all the war protesters into one category. That is like throwing all the soldiers in one category. Kerry went to war and saw it was a waste. He was trying to end the stupidity. That is better than keeping your mouth shut and just riding on your war record.

I think more importantly is to tell the person that even if it could be proven, their religion would still have meaning, just as finding out that the earth revolves around the sun and that the earth isn't flat didn't end religion. Creationism requires belief in a creator, science does not require the exclusion of one.

Unfortunately, politics attracts certain types of people that often exclude engineers, scientists, etc. It would be nice to get more diversity into politics, but I think one of the greatest problems is the general population For example, if John Kerry got up and said, I will abolish the Tax Cut completely, our country cannot afford it anymore. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. First of all, most people wouldn't even hear his words. They would get soundbites and jokes from various sources about it. He would lose in a landslide because people don't want to hear things like that. They want to hear lies.

Isn't that enough? Also, his "humble" approach doesn't help.

Yes, that is why we needed to get the "surplus" back. Makes sense to me.

Again, what bothers many about Bush and conservatives is the hypocritcal way they attack. Before Clinton/Monica, conservatives always attacked democrates on tax and spend. They want big government. We want to make it smaller. When they failed to make it smaller, they would blaim the congress. They have it all now and its worse. OK we were attacked, but Iraq will end up being the primary cost, which had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!! Also, defense spending needs to be evaluated - too much waste with weapons not needed anymore. AL GORE would not have invaded IRAQ!! At least not as hurridly as Bush, and yes he would have invaded Afghanistan anyone would. All this being said, I am neither dem or repub. I like the fiscal promise of repub's but its a lie. We did get tax cuts, but they are borrowed - no thanks. Also, the defecit as a % GDP - what is alarming is this reduces with Dems and increases with Repubs. Also, look at the slope of the line! If Iraq finishes soon, the line might flatten some, but it isn't.

What? BUSH I invaded Iraq and didn't get Saddam! Clinton should have responded more forcfully to Osama - forget Saddam already. Reagan barely took office when the hostages were released. Unless he had already promised them weapons, I doubt he had anything to do with it.

How did Reagan free the Iran hostages? Just by becoming President. Just changing leadership sends a signal that things are on a new path. The world will be willing to give Kerry a chance. No, they won't be rushing into Iraq happily, but there will be a breath of fresh air. I do think he would be able to get us out of Iraq quicker than Bush. Then he can concentrate on other things.

Not good enough. Nope. Bush did better! Did he drop the mortor shell? Was it enemy fire? Are you sure? Are the documents fake? etc.

Yes two terms, although Bush will probably try to make it ten since he is the only man on earth capable of fighting terrorism. Two term presidents usually glide into the second term, have some scandel related to the first term - Monica, Iran/Contra and focus on foreign relations. Maybe Bush can do the opposite and start worrying about domestic affairs, but I doubt it.

Probably earlier than that. I think it came originally thru India. I'm sure it didn't look the same, but was probably similar.

Very true, although some of this is due to the election being so close.

So what? The republicans are in charge of both houses and the presidency. I wonder what the % of evangelical christians are republican right wing nuts? % of corrupt CEO's?

My reasoning for it being limited is simple, it is a compromise because I don't think we can realistically get rid of all guns. If we could, I would be for it. You must read the constitution like some people read the bible. The constitution is a living document and can be amended and interpreted. Why is the right to bear arms in the damn thing? So you have a right to kill your government? I don't think so. To fight a foreign invader? Not very effective if our own army got whipped. Do you draw the line anywhere? No limits for arms?