09 Aug 2004 | Keith said...

I've been meaning to read that, thanks for the reminder. I've got to say I find it very ironic and extremely funny that the Google ad on this page right now reads "Re-elect Bush T-shirts" -- hilarious.

09 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

SHUT UP. CUT HIS MIC!

09 Aug 2004 | John Dowdell said...

Here's info on how you can compare nutritional value for meals at Wendy's:
http://www.wendys.com/food/BAMMain.jsp

09 Aug 2004 | Mark said...

"...His economy is filled with pals called Kenny-boy who fly around in their own airplanes. In Bushs economy, his world, friends relocate offshore to avoid paying taxes. Taxes are for chumps like you. You are not a friend. Youre the help. When the party Mr. Bush is hosting in his world ends, youll be left picking shrimp toast out of the carpet..."

Strange, you could so easily replace "Bush" w/"Kerry" in these examples and it would still be accurate.

09 Aug 2004 | but that's just me said...

Ironic, isn't it, Mark? (Good point.)

09 Aug 2004 | sloan said...

When are they going to slam companies and super rich individuals for PO Boxes in the Bahamas? I think that shit pisses me off more than anything. If I had my own company I wouldn't do business with companies like March First on that principle alone.

09 Aug 2004 | pb said...

Sloan, you mena Assenter? Pardon me, Accenture?

10 Aug 2004 | Jonny Roader said...

"When Mr. Bush talks about the economy, he is not talking about your economy."

Nails it. An adminstration of the super-rich, for the super-rich.

10 Aug 2004 | Tim said...

The real wackos are the people who are still supporting this President.

10 Aug 2004 | Terry said...

Stick to techno stuff! This President is doing a great job...dont listen to people like Moore and Reagan, do some research on your own and become enlightened.

10 Aug 2004 | Brian said...

I don't think people need Moore and Reagan to tell me those things which are apparent.

Terry and all other Bush supporters, if all things were equal and this were a democrat in office would you be supporting your president? Unlikely. Clinton got oral sex and was going to be impeached ... nobody died for that for that lie.

10 Aug 2004 | Phil said...

I love how conservatives say stuff like when Terry said "do some research on your own and become enlightened". Thanks, don't mind if I do! And when I do I find that both Kerry and Bush are filthy rich, but the similarities end there. The only way you can be a conservative is if you stick your head in the sand and cling for dear life to your cliches like "democrats will raise taxes!" and "democrats are soft on defense!". Once you get past the sound bites and BS, it's frightenly obvious what each party is actually doing. For example, more defense spending doesn't equate to a safer country. It depends on where you spend the money. Buying outdated, unneccessary weapons to line the pockets of your defense contract buddy doesn't make anyone safer (SDI anyone?). Doing real research and turning off Rush and O'Reilly only points to one thing, a liberal progressive attitude is what this country needs, and Bush and his cronies need to be shown the exit.

10 Aug 2004 | Darrel said...

"This President is doing a great job...dont listen to people like Moore and Reagan, do some research on your own and become enlightened."

I think the LAST thing this admin wants is for people to actually have initiative to research all their claims beyond the spinning sound bites they spew. ;o)

BTW, this is a pretty nice site for fact checking both sides:

http://www.factcheck.org

10 Aug 2004 | Realish said...

Strange, you could so easily replace "Bush" w/"Kerry" in these examples and it would still be accurate.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Kerry was born into old blood but not much money. The reason he has lots of money now is that he married an heiress.

And despite his birth into the east coast elite, Kerry has spent his entire life volunteering and working in public service -- as opposed to, say, drinking, partying, and running failed businesses salvaged by his dad's money.

Having money cannot be a disqualification for high office -- if it is, nobody could possibly win our support, because let's face it, it takes a lot of money to run.

The money is not the problem, the problem is to whom you owe your allegience. Kerry has worked all his life for the public good. Bush has lived surrounded by unearned privilege and is now serving it in everything he does. There's no comparison.

Killer article, though.

10 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Realish, while I don't necessarily appreciate the somewhat "in your face" tone (at least that's how it hit me), your comment "Kerry has worked all his life for the public good" really, REALLY resonated with me!

Thank you; you are the FIRST person who has reached inside me and moved me one way or the other. Excellent point.

At this time (subject to change), I'm ready to say that I've picked a candidate, and it's John Kerry.

10 Aug 2004 | Mark said...

Realish -

I'd be really interested in knowing where you gathered that background information from.

Seems everything I read which is pro-Kerry seems too manufactured and perfect, and alternatively anti-Kerry viewpoints far more harsh than they probably need to be.

10 Aug 2004 | Mark said...

This article is interesting.

I would believe what's presented here before believing that JFK "worked all his life for the public good." That is, until I read something substantitive that backs that theory up.

11 Aug 2004 | Indi said...

Mark, that was an interesting article. It's probably all a lie though. Anything negative about Kerry is a lie, while anything negative about Bush is true. That's a known fact. Ask anyone.

But seriously, Kerry's character and background don't matter at all. He didn't even bother discussing his 20 years in the Senate during his acceptance speech. This whole election is about getting "Not Bush" into office. End of story.

11 Aug 2004 | Terry said...

You just hit the nail on the head of what I truly dont understand. Why is it all about "Not Bush"? That thinking is crazy. Granted, I agree that we made a mistake about Iraq, however, replace Bush with Kerry and he would of make the same decition with the information that was presented (he adimited that). Can any of you with Hot Sports Opinions back up your claims against Bush? No one has PROVEN to me yet that any of it is true. I find no truth in Moores Film, I find no truth in the left wing media slant, I find not truth to any of it. And to say that charater and background does not matter...wow, this country is in truly disarray! Look out sodom and gomorrah...

11 Aug 2004 | Phil said...

Wow Terry I admire you hanging in there in this thread when everyone else has so elegantly refuted all your points. Read the original post, especially the part about Nobel laureates, the scientific community and military officials disagreeing with Bush. This isn't coming from a "left-wing slant" or fringe wackos. These are rational, highly intelligent people who understand how the world works and they all agree on one thing, Bush must go. I am proud to be in the "anything but Bush" camp. The Democratic nominee would need to be one crazy, stupid mf to not get my vote.

If you are looking for proof, open your eyes. I agree with you that Moore is a little off the deep end, but read Joe Connason, Paul Krugman or Al Franken and try to keep an open mind.

12 Aug 2004 | Indi said...

Phil, the people Ron refers to may be rational and highly intelligent, but that doesn't mean they know how the world works and it certainly doesn't mean they don't have their own agenda.

12 Aug 2004 | texson said...

So your saying the unrational and unintelligent know how the world works? Do you write george's speeches?

12 Aug 2004 | Brian said...

Mark -- You need to stop watching Fox and reading the weekly standard. There are other non-right wing news sources out there.

All I see is bashing Kerry, I don't see any republicans arguing why Bush should be in office. Instead of slamming Kerry, why don't you [republicans] try to educate everyone else on why they SHOULD vote for Bush. Something aside from the party line of national security would be nice.

What are your thoughts on the 99.9% made up swift boat ads running? What I find most amusing about that commercial is the doctor who says he treated Kerry. Louis Letsons name does not appear on any of Kerry's records. As a doctor in Vietnam I am sure he saw horrific injuries -- it amazes me he would remember Kerry, which he claims he has a very clear memory of. In his accounts he states, "What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle."

Are you kidding me! This guy saw men with arms and legs blown off and he can recall this.

Lets get something straight - Kerry went to Vietnam. Kerry fought in Vietnam. Being in Vietnam means your life was at risk everyday.
The republicans did the same thing to McCain, trying to say he was a traitor when we he was held captive for 5+ years in Vietnam.

Then you have Karl Rove - the king of push polling. If you don't know what push polling is:

"A telemarketing technique in which telephone calls are used to canvass vast numbers of potential voters, feeding them false and damaging 'information' about a candidate under the guise of taking a poll to see how this 'information' affects voter preferences. In fact, the intent is to 'push' the voters away from one candidate and toward the opposing candidate."

Push polling was a huge success in South Carolina against McCain in 2000. They basically put out the following:

- McCains wife, Cindy, was a drug addict
- McCain was a basket case due to being a POW in Vietnam
- McCain was the father of an illegitimate black child following an encounter with a prostitute

Good guys. People I want running the country.

Will Kerry do a better job? I have no idea, he may be horrible. However it is time for a change and time to give someone else a shot. If in 4 years he has done a bad job I will change my vote for the next guy.

12 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Brian --- Louis Letson's name doesn't appear because he was the attending physician and not the supervisor. Common.

That said, your description of the South Carolina debacle is spot on, and why I can't imagine why McCain would ever support the Rove/Bush ticket. Their tactics during the 2000 campaign were below slimey. It makes me sick, and turned me off to presidential politics.

I want a designation on my poll so that I can choose the candidates opposite the encumbent.

12 Aug 2004 | Brian said...

Thanks for the explanation Don. But still don't you find it a bit odd to remember such a tiny thing with all that was going on?

12 Aug 2004 | Mark said...

Brian

Thanks for attempting to put me in a box. If thats the way its going to be, allow me to at least make some suggestions on what size and type box to put me in ok?

In the past 4 four-year election cycles (dating back to 1984) that Ive been eligible to vote, Ive NEVER voted a straight ticket. I watch Fox and CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Nightline, Frontline, and old reruns of The Munsters. I read the Houston Chronicle (regarded by many conservatives as being as liberal as a newspaper can get) more so than the Weekly Standard.

I consider myself a conservative independent. I really dont give a rats ass about parties and party lines in fact, I think all that nonsense is going to be the ruin of this great nation. All I want to see is someone who truly is a representative of the people and a true leader with a vision (not an agenda) step up to the plate to take us to the next step.

All I want to see is my two children grow up safely. I want the small amount of money in my piggy bank to grow a little and be there for me and my family when I grow old in a few years. I want to be able to hand my small company off to my son in 18 years and be assured hes been educated adequately to take the reigns.

That said, it really troubles me that the left, with all their supposed intellectuals can come up with no better not Bush a strategy which sounds good in theory, but doesnt work so well in practice.

Just take a good read at Reagans article that Ryan referenced in this post. All of it is not Bush. Not once does he endorse Kerry. In fact, the last four words of that very eloquent article spoke volumes more to me than the previous five pages combined someone else for President.

Think about what not Bush really means. If you were the DNC spinmeister and you were tasked with finding an eligible candidate where there was none, what would you come up with?

Not Bush is a copout. The DNC would have been just as well off getting Richard Pryors character from Brewsters Millions and adopting the slogan None of the Above.

I want some meat with my potatoes, and I really dont care who serves it to me. Right now all Im seeing is the glossy, perfectly placed and lit menu photo which looks nothing like what the people around me are actually eating.

Its making me sick.

12 Aug 2004 | Brian said...

I want all those things too. As I said, I don't think Bush is that guy and I don't know if Kerry is but I don't have any other options. I have seen what Bush can do and now I am ready to give someone else a chance.

12 Aug 2004 | Mark said...

Brian -

Can you see, even in your response, "not Bush" has been programmed into your thinking.

I am really anxious to start hearing from somebody -- anybody, alot of bodies...

Why Kerry?

12 Aug 2004 | Brian said...

It's not programmed in -- like you, don't put me in a box. I don't like Bush so what are my options?

And I am anxious to hear why Bush?

12 Aug 2004 | Mark said...

I apologize. I double thought my comment after hitting the post button.

I agree with you, I want to know why Bush as much as I want to know why Kerry. Like you, all I see and hear is each candidate being the summation of all things evil - not anything about what they bring to the table.

I don't care about what the other guy can't do. I want to know what you can - and how you're going to go about doing it.

As I said, it's all glossy, prettified menu photos.

12 Aug 2004 | Phil said...

Mark, you said you want a president that is truly representative of the people. Here is the Bush stance on the major issues which divide the parties, he is anti-choice, anti-gun control, anti-environment, pro death penalty and pro-big bussiness. The fact, with no spin at all, is the majority of Americans fall on the opposite side of EVERY one of those divisive issues. The Republicans in getneral don't represent the majority, and this Rpublican takes it to the extreme.

You mentioned you want your children to grow up safe and educated. Invading Iraq and cutting education to fund tax cuts acheives none of these goals. I wish people would understand we are less safe due to the Iraq invasion.

This administration wants tax cuts now and is willing to sacrifice the future of our country to get it. The bottom line is that this country is healthier when everyone is happy, not just the rich. Social programs and estate taxes are what makes the WHOLE country healthy. In the long run, when your kids are grown, it makes a difference.

This is the best country in the world. I'll gladly pay the taxes I pay now or even a slight bit more to live here and maintain that status.

12 Aug 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Why Bush?

Ummmm ...

Why Kerry?

Ummmm ...

How about Why Republican Platform or Why Democrat Platform?

Better yet: Why Michael Badnarik? Why indeed!

12 Aug 2004 | indi said...

texson said:

"So your saying the unrational and unintelligent know how the world works? Do you write george's speeches?"

That's making the presumption that no rational or intelligent people support Bush. The fact that this is pretty much a 50-50 race makes that presumption doubtful. Sure, there's a lot of what Bush and the republicans say that annoy me and worry me. But there is much more about Kerry that bothers me. "Not Bush" just doesn't cut it.

And Brian, I heard an interview with the doctor who treated Kerry in Viet Nam. The reason he remembered the incident is because Kerry's crew mates made the comment at the time that Kerry said he would be president someday.

Phil, you summed up some of Bush's positions .. I don't agree with the "anti-environment" dig ... but what are Kerry's positions? Do you even know? Does anyone? From what I can tell, he's against abortion ... but pro choice, I don't know what his position is on gun control, but I know I've seen lots of pictures of him toting guns around, he's pro environment but loves his SUVs and Jet (well, his wife's jet) and he wants to tax big business and the "rich" to death ... but he is supported by big business and is filthy rich. Now don't you find all that just a tad confusing? At least if I vote for Bush I know what I'm getting. The nihilistic attitude of "let's throw the idiot out and hope for the best" just doesn't cut it.

12 Aug 2004 | One of several Steves said...

What's wrong with sometimes voting or deciding based on "not" someone? Sometimes there is someone so bad for everything you hope for and wish for for your country, that you're left with little option. It can be argued whether that applies to Bush or not (in my opinion it does, but that's just my opinion and his hardly gospel), but I can't accept that "not" someone isn't a valid voting rationale in certain circumstances.

Sometimes one option is so bad that just about anything would be better. That's the way a lot of people are feeling in this election right now. I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm not going to be voting for Kerry as much as I'm going to be voting to prevent a second Bush term. For me, stopping that is the priority. I respect those who disagree, but I don't respect the idea that this is an invalid reason behind my vote.

12 Aug 2004 | Brian said...

Indi, come on - his crew mates said he would be president someday. That is the lamest thing I have ever heard. In between sewing legs back to bodies and loading guys into body bags I'm sure that was a flash memory for him.

As for the environment there are plenty of examples. One is the Bush administration has repeatedly refused to sign the emission-reducing Kyoto Protocol.

12 Aug 2004 | Brian said...

More environment

Bush's 2003 EPA budget would continue a three-year effort to slash the number of enforcement jobs. With fewer people available to enforce the laws, the result is not surprising. Since Bush took office, civil environmental penalties are down almost 50 percent, the number of pounds of pollution to be cleaned up is down 20 percent, and EPA is conducting three thousand fewer inspections each year

12 Aug 2004 | Phil said...

indi, I don't find those issues confusing at all and I know where Kerry stands on all of them. Anyone who watched his DNC speech would know most of these things too.

I, myself, am "against" abortion and pro-choice. Abortion is an awful thing but I don't believe in making it illegal.

The only pictures I've seen of Kerry toting a gun are from Viet Nam.

Driving an SUV and flying private jets doesn't make you anti-environment. Kerry clearly explained that he won't drill for oil on US soil. He is in favor of research for alternative, energy sources to decrease our dependence on foreign, unrenewable oil.

Kerry is filthy rich and supported by big business, like anyone who would have a chance in hell of running for president. The amount of big bussiness support that Kerry gets is dwarfed a thousand to one over the big business support Bush gets.

When you voted for Bush last time, did you know what you were getting? If you based that vote on his campaign promises, did you get what you expected?

12 Aug 2004 | windi said...

OK, so some would have us believe both candidates are in the back pockets of the corporate elite.

13 Aug 2004 | indi said...

Phil,

I voted for Bush because I liked him better than Gore. It's hard to say what the country would be like if 9/11 hadn't happened. I wasn't paticularly disappointed with Bush up to that point. There were some campaign promises he didn't keep that didn't really bother me, some that did ... that happens with all elected officials. Promise the moon and deliver a trip around the block. But he did say he would cut taxes and that's what he did. He expanded medicare with prescription drugs (much to many conservatives ire). Hey, Ron Reagan Jr. notwithstanding, he was the first president to fund stem cell research.

I expect that if Kerry is elected he won't keep most of his promises either. Bottom line is I just don't like the guy. He just strikes me as a phoney who will say and do whatever it takes to get elected ... well, more than most politicians anyway. I just don't trust him. Ridiculous as I know it sounds to many who read this, I do trust Bush. Call me crazy.

13 Aug 2004 | Mark said...

Indie -

You're crazy.

But, apparently, I am as well, because that exactly how I'm feeling about all this. I don't see Kerry as having a vision at all -- but rather he's merely vomiting up to us the party line. I can't help but feel he's going to be a lame duck and when his feet are put to the fire to account for it, all we'll be hearing from him is -

"But...but, I'm (lets say it all together now)

not Bush."