Actually, yes, I would fire someone who was demostratively incompetent, and I would hire someone new because I thought they would do a better job, that's exactly how you hire people.

As for what he did to benefit me, I think the more important thing is what he did to benefit America. And, since what I see benefiting America is different than what you see as benefiting America, there's really no point in continuing this conversation.

Cheers

Hiring another person because you think he would do a better job is the a core belief when you hate somebody applying for the job. Could it be that Bush is against the principles of the Democratic Party? Principles like obey the law if it is for you and disobey the law if it is against you. Use your basic rights to circumvent the law. You want examples?

Of course you see something else that Kerry did benefiting all Americans that no one else can see because there is "NONE". Don't give up get your friends to help you. There must be at least one - like testifying before the congress in 1971? Or did he say something - then next time contradicts what he said?

That's why any sane American should vote for him!

Am I wrong?

aconservative

Yes

Cheers

I like Kerry because of his policies for energy, the environment, education, and national service. I also like his record of service to his country.

I do not think the arguments that Kerry has flip-flopped during his 19 year voting record are valid. I think it reflects the fact that the world is a complicated and dynamic technicolor place. Bush's record seems to show that he sees the world in black and white, and quite frankly, that's dangerous.

Hi Robert!

Welcome.

You used the word "policies". Are you referring to "what he had done" or "what he is thinking" or "what he is telling the people to get elected"? Or you like Kerry because somebody convinced you that he is a likable candidate.

If the world is complicated, would you say things that you contradict when the weather is fine? People, especially those seeking for power, must show that they can be trusted. I don't think you can trust anybody who can not trust what he tells you? Do you?

I think every sane person thinks that there is always the good and there is always the bad. But a person says something today and contradicts himself the next day, don't you not think that this person has two or more personalities?

When we elect a President, we are electing a decision maker - one that adheres to his convictions. If he does something, he believes that - that something is for the good of all Americans. Not all may agree - liberal won't agree, but in his conviction he made the right decision. That's the trait of a decision maker - especially if he wants to be a Commander-in-Chief.

aconservative

As opposed to Bush? You know it's really easy to look at one man's record over four years, versus a man's record over his entire career.

Cheers

You know it's really easy to look at one man's record over four years, versus a man's record over his entire career.

Agreed. I mean, Bush has flip-flopped on drunk driving. Sure, he's anti-drunk driving now, but in his earlier days, he was clearly pro-drunk driving.

Robert

Name one instances whereby Bush policies on the environment, energy and national service had affected you personally. I would like to discuss them.

aconservative

How about every time I go out and breathe the air?

Cheers

Name one instances whereby Bush policies on the environment, energy and national service had affected you personally.

You sound more stupid by the day. I'm beginning truly to believe that you're a twelve-year-old.

The problem with you libs is you can't cite a situation that the environment, energy and national service have affected you. If you know of anybody who had been hurt because of these policies then say it or write it. Spill out the names. Prove it! Name your source. Don't hide behind the skirt of your insults if you can't penetrate. Remorsefully admit it because it reflects who you are. Use words that only civilized people are accustomed to hearing.

The question is very simple. What's hard with identifying the Bush policies on the enviroment, energy and national servcice that affected you, if you have a single crumb in mind. The question was not written in Chinese. It was written in simple English. The fact is you guys don't have one.

If you have examples, spill them out. Let's debate them using acceptable rules of debate. I hope this is not too difficult to apperceive.

Otherwise, go take a nap.

aconservative

the environment, energy and national service have affected you.

I live in the environment. I use energy. I don't know what you mean by "national service."

What's hard with identifying the Bush policies on the enviroment, energy and national servcice that affected you

An issue doesn't have to have direct tangible impact on my daily life for me to have an opinion on it. Are you ever going to enter into a gay marriage? If not, do you care?

Let's debate them using acceptable rules of debate. I hope this is not too difficult to apperceive.

You have no idea about the rules of logic, never mind debate.

Boulbous, are you essentially admitting that you are against Bush's environmental policies even though you don't actually know what they are?

So basically Democrats seem to be for Kerry because they don't like Bush.

Here's why I favor Bush over Kerry:

1) The War on terror. I know where Bush stands on this issue and I prefer Bush's position to Kerry's nebulous positions.

2) I do not want universal healthcare provided by the government.

3) I do not want my taxes raised.

4) I dn't want us to leave Iraq until the job is complete.

5) I don't want a President who puts US national interest as a secondary consideration to "world opinion" or the UN.

6) I like Bush's "No Child Left Bhind program" as it requires schools to be accountable more so than in the past.

But basically, #1 is my main issue. I get the distinct impression that Kerry, like Clinton, would treat the war on terrorism as a law enforcement issue rather than a war.

No child left behind is ineffective, ask any educator, ask members of the program.

Cheers

Boulbous, are you essentially admitting that you are against Bush's environmental policies even though you don't actually know what they are?

I didn't say that. I didn't say I was against anything. aconservative asked how they affect me. Since I live in the environment, Bush's policies are relevant to me regardless of whether they are great or terrible.

So basically Democrats seem to be for Kerry because they don't like Bush.

That's the main reason I'm for Kerry.

I've tried to confront Kerry supporters MANY times with this. From what I gather I don't think the lot of them know why they support Kerry; they just do. I fully believe they screwed up by voting Kerry. The only way Kerry will beat Bush is because of Bush himself.

GO DEAN! (whoops) GO NADER!

Read my posts on the topic and you'll see why I and many other Kerry supporters are voting for him.

Cheers

No child left behind is ineffective, ask any educator, ask members of the program.

Well as someone who knows teachers and has asked, they disagree. I am sure everyone you hang out with feels the same way you do and similarly a lot of th epeople I talk to feel the same as I do.

What does matter to me is that I am convinced that it is a step in the right direction. I would like it to go further, I'd like to see public schools be opened up more to competition from the private sector, but this is a good step.

I'm pretty happy with the quality of education from our school district. It is much better than the one I went to.

It is a step in the right direction, the problem is it's cronically underfunded. I don't disagree with the concept. I disagree with the amount of money that's being put into it. Since Bush himself blocked an attempt by lawmakers to bring the total funding up to what the director of the program had asked for, I feel that Bush, in this regard, is more talk than substance.

Cheers

CONSERVITIVES ARE TRASH . LIBERIALS ARE SMART.

CONSERVITIVES WEAK ON SOCIAL SERCUITY & HEALTH CARE.
GET A LIFE KERRY & EDWARDS ARE BETTER THAN BUSH & CHENEY.

gastank2 didnt u post in one topic how you hated liberals and would build fencepost around them to not listen to their rhetoric?

and now your saying conservatives are trash and liberals are smart? i guess little kids always change their minds on who to support and affiliate with and who not to..

no i am a liberal ! when i joined someone that i don't know had the name gastank.
but people do change their minds , like aconservative he was a demorcrat and he switch to the stupid republican party!
why be a republican president bush likes to spend money we don't have & start wars when we are already righting
another!

sorry i wanted to put fighting not righting

the only things against kerry that the republicans have is a PAST lack of military and anti-terrorism spending. well hate to break it to you republicans but bush did the same....RIGHT BEFORE 9/11!!! which was probably staged by him nways. but speeking from a strictly mainstream media printed viewpoint - he cut spending to anti-terrorism units and is, as we speak, cutting pay to our young people in combat over seas as well as reducing benefits to those who have given of themselves in previous wars. perhaps these budget cuts wouldnt be needed if bush hadnt called for massive tax cuts that benefited mostly the upper class (his campaign contributers). maybe these budget cuts wouldnt be necessary if he had not, on TOP of getting rid of our budget surplus through tax cuts, gone into another country unprovoked - a country who never threatened or hurt us by the way and started a war without having a plan as to how we were going to leave the country.

so you think kerry will cut spending? please!! he said that he would increase benefits for injured veterans and he is NOT weak on terrorism. he went into this war saying we are going into iraq to stop sadam hussein who is harboring al quida (whos leader osama bin laden by the way hated hussein) and to get his weapons of mass destruction (be they chemical or nuclear).

when did this focus change from terrorist hunting and weapons destruction to freeing the iraqi people? ill tell you when!! when his lie was found out and the ignorant and unthinking american people began thinking well wait a min. here. the saudis give waaaaaaay more money to terrorist and iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world....bush + presidency = opportunity to take iraqi oil? i think soooooooooo. so here we have a lying, betraying bush regarding war and defense spending. THEN he starts on our civil liberties. we have our lovely proposed constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage as well as the patriot act and department of homeland security. we have our lax environtmental restrictions for big bus. factories (once again for bush leading contributers who make up a VERY small percentage of our countries population). we have our corporate accounting and executive frauds. lovely as well seeing as how the man who gave the most to his 2000 campaign got the money from us, the american people, when he FUCKING STOLE IT FROM ENRON INVESTRORS!!! not like bush would care neway since when you go back and look at all of his lovely harken scandals and previous bus. fraud he would appear as guilty as the rest of them.

but wait! does it stop there? i think not!
now we have halliburtan (sp?) - the company of our dearest vice pres cheney which just so haaaappened to recieve over 1.66 outa 1.99 billion dollars of ALL the american and iraqi contracts in iraq.

the american gov is just one big cash cow to the bush family and its friends and while some ....hmm...many ill informed republicans may blindly believe that our president is right in saying that kerry cant handle national security in a way that ensures the safety of the american people - id honestly rather have a pres that does nothing but maintain the american way of life rather than improve it (as kerry is accused of doing) than a pres. who blatantly rips us off, lies to us and gets us deeper and deeper into trouble with the international community.

as for education? Millions of 8-year-olds are given lists of words and phrases. they are then graded. then the children scoring lowly have the option of being sent to another school where they can do better? riiiiiiight. it never happens. the money that was supposed to go towards this plan went to end the inheritance tax giving rich peoples kids a few more million in money when they die essentially making it the no child whos parents make at least 7 digits a year are left behind act. then what happens? the kids who are tested as not being well enough educated are locked in. there are no "optional schools" for them to attend unlike bush who attended Philips Andover Academy where even with the help of some of the countries finest teachers he, upon graduation, managed only to score a 25 outa 100 on the air national guards test. yes ladies and gents - almost to stupid to be allowed to operate on or in an airplane.

hes not even the one who truly makes the decisions. i dont know if you are all aware of this or not but bush has never EVER been on television or to an interview where his responses and have not been scripted by his staff before hand and even THEN he fucks up.

hes a joke. neone willing to do their home work would see that. i dont especially agree with all that kerry says but compared to bush - nething is better

More proud Americans voted for Gore; don't forget that. And as far as campaigning goes, nothing is dirtier than using pictures of the destruction of the World Trade Center for political gain.

Yeah and it didn't do them much good now did it?

Identify what is bad against Bush and let's debate them - let's compare his actions aginst what your candidate's actions should have been based on his voting record in the Senate or against the records of Johnson, Carter and Clinton. Johnson, Carter, and Clinton are irrelevant, unless you're prepared to defend Nixon. In the meantime, joeuser.com is rife with my complaints about Bush. You know what the Democrats' beef with the President is.

You COMPLETELY avoided what this person was asking! Typical Democratic knee-jerk reaction! So I'll ask once again and see if you can possibly answer this time. And please try to do it intelligently.
Identify what is bad against Bush and let's debate them - let's compare his actions aginst what your candidate's actions should have been based on his voting record in the Senate