That Bush will be back in Crawford. You all can argue all you want still, but I have a feeling tomorrow night will be a great night for the country.
Then I can start hating Kerry once he takes office.
I hope you don't have children then. If Kerry gets elected, he's going to have to spend your children's future into oblivion if he plans to give everybody everything he's promised.
If Kerry spends all that money, how is he going to eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt? What are your kids going to do when the nation goes bankrupt?
I'm going to answer that with a question.
Who is the president under which the national defict reached it's highest level?
Bush. Why?
Oh, I think you know why.
No, I don't. Why?
You don't get it, do you? If you vote for Kerry or Bush, you're voting for candidates who have no problems with continuing to spend more money than we have.
How do you propose that we pay back what we owe?
no reason
no YOU don't get it. I didn't say I was voting for Kerry did I? You assumed. Not only that, but you also assume Kerry will be able to deliver on everything he's promised. With a republican congress? Yeah ing right. Next, Bush being elected with a republican congress will CONTINUE to increase the defecit.
Now another question genius, the last time we had a balanced budget did we have opposing parties in the white house and in control of congress?
Both of them are going to spend, spend, spend. Only two candidates have a real shot of winning. And you think that seeing Bush voted out of office, you must think that the other candidate is pretty good if it will result in a "great night for the country." If Bush loses, Kerry will win. That means that even with a pro-war, pro-spending president in Kerry, you think it will be great for the country. So even if you don't vote for Kerry, it's clear that you think his potential victory is great for the country.no YOU don't get it. I didn't say I was voting for Kerry did I? You assumed. Not only that, but you also assume Kerry will be able to deliver on everything he's promised. With a republican congress? Yeah ing right. Next, Bush being elected with a republican congress will CONTINUE to increase the defecit.
Same difference.
The last time we had a balanced budget and significantly paid down the debt was...well, it was so long ago that I can't remember when it was.Now another question genius, the last time we had a balanced budget did we have opposing parties in the white house and in control of congress?
So who are you voting for?
At least with a 2nd Bush administration there is the chance, albeit slim, that we will see real en lement reform. If you are concerned about the fiscal health of the government that is the place to start.
At that pace, it's going to take forever. I can't wait that long.
It's clear that Bush isn't committed to spending less. If he really does decrease spending on social programs, I'll be happy. So it would be a good start I guess.
But it still wouldn't be a real solution.
Well what is the hand we have been dealt today?
It's only been 4 years since we had a balanced budget.
I'm voting libertarian.
You're voting libertarian, but since a Bush loss means a Kerry win, you will think it's great for the country when your candidate loses and a democrat wins?
Kerry is about as anti-libertarian as I can imagine. How you can vote libertarian and still feel that a Kerry victory - or, conversely, a Bush loss - is great for the nation?
I mean, you think it's going to be a great night for the country when your candidate loses? Wouldn't it be a great night for your country if your candidate wins?
The problem is that if everyone continues to think that way, we'll be stuck in the two-party system forever.
The only way to change the had we've been dealt is to vote for candidates that aren't members of the two primary parties.
Sure, I did that in 2000. Probably will do it in 2008 as well.
Does anyone actually believe the deficit was erased and the budget was balanced in 2000? How about that Enron was a strong company during it's last few years?
Strange how the Democrats were not only the last to party balance the budget, but also provide a dividend to taxpayers through a tax cut, and cut en lements, but the Republicans who have done one of the three are veiwed as being more fiscally responsible. It's like some on this board are still living in the 60-70's.
Who was in control of Congress? The GOP. Try again.Strange how the Democrats were not only to last to party balance the budget, but also provide a dividend to taxpayers through a tax cut and cut eni lements, but the Republicans who have done one of the three are veiwed as more fiscally responsible. It's like some on this board are still living in the 60-70's.
The only way that happened is because Clinton was willing to go against precisely what his party stood for. Lib Dems never wanted welfare reform, NAFTA, spending cuts, and those tax cuts.
Yes, your party is living in the 1960s if you think these massive government programs are desirable.
Also, fiscal responsibility doesn't consist of simply raising taxes to meet spending increases. The Democrats' stated agenda is to nationalize the US health care industry, among other things. Now that just might lead to an increase in spending and taxation.
If Kerry gets elected, I might as well sign up for the Army and request to be sent to Iraq. There at least I stand a fair chance at fighting Osama and AQ, instead of sitting around waiting to get my ass handed to me due to Kerry's pacifistic leadership.
Oh, and I need to kiss more of what little money I have in my pocket goodbye, seeings Kerry wants social healthcare for all.
Fight Osama???
Osama and Kerry have said the same things, and are running the same ticket pretty much.
Kerry/Bin Laden.
A STRONGER Islamic country!!!
Confident again four years later. LMFAO!!!!
errr.........Kerry won.....but Diebold machines switched votes.....or did Kerry really receive negative votes in some counties?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
