Gavin in Va Beach Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 I would expect a Republican to say exactly that. 8810[/snapback] And I would expect a Democrat to believe that a Federal Dept of Education is necessary and that it represents anything other than a massive sinkhole into which billions of dollars go into never to be seen again. Not to mention that it's monies are used to blackmail states into submission on complying with whatever crappy program they've just thunk up. It's a wonder anyone was ever really edumacated before the Feds got into the business. Those states were doing a horrible job of turning out innovative thinkers like Thomas Edison or Henry Ford... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 **His halfass attempt at cutting taxes. Don't add another million pages to the tax code and tell me you did a good job. Someone needs to take the tax code over to the shredder and go to town. Can anyone really explain to me why a tax code needs to be over a couple of pages long? Manipulating the tax code is one of the true evils politicians perpetrate on our country. **No reform of government to speak of. Dept of Education can go, along with a few others. Streamline, privatize, and cut away. Govt is too big by half. **His lack of communication. He has trouble speaking well in public so he doesn't. He hasn't been out there enough articulating his vision (if he has one) for what post-war Iraq is going to look like and what our goals are moving forward in the war on terrorism. Supposedly he is going to say more on this and other stuff at the convention...we'll see. There are others, but that's a few off the top of my head. I'm not real gung-ho about pulling the lever for Bush and may still not, but Kerry? Are you fuggin' nuts? 8778[/snapback] SEE? That wasn't hard; that's what I wanted to know! You don't think he's conservative enough, judging by your responses. Very interesting. There are MANY things I don't like about John Kerry, but as in 1988, we are forced to choose between this crazy conservatism vs. a Taxachusetts phony. I just wanted to know what everyone though Bush's problems were on the other end. Things I don't like about John Kerry: He's from Taxachusetts/loves raising taxes. He voted for the war. He has a shoddy voting record/attendance record. He's embarassed himself by exaggerating his life, and he got caught. He lets his wife say things that are WAY over the top, and she lied and got caught. He doesn't have a real personality... he acts as if he's staging himself for the job, rather than actually PROVING why he deserves it. He has YET TO COME OUT with any concrete plans of substance. And yet, I'm voting for him, because the status quo is WAY too scary for my tastes. We can't afford mistakes like Iraq again. If it's Syria or Iran, it's non-nuclear WWIII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 He lets his wife say things that are WAY over the top, and she lied and got caught. 9134[/snapback] LETS his wife say things? What, do you live in an episode of "Leave it to Beaver" or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 it's non-nuclear WWIII. Hey! What's with the non? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Hey! What's with the non? 9148[/snapback] WWIII that is nuclear is okay. At least that's what I read. So if Bush starts a WWIII with Nukes then everyone will be okay with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 Hey! What's with the non? 9148[/snapback] We won't go nuclear in the Middle East; we don't HAVE to... we'd put Iran away in a second, BUT the consequences of that action would mean Middle East WWIII. I hate Iran, BTW... their government is vile and ruthless. They start EVERY SESSION with a 'Death to America'. Iraq was small potatoes compared to Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted August 27, 2004 Share Posted August 27, 2004 LETS his wife say things? What, do you live in an episode of "Leave it to Beaver" or something? 9143[/snapback] If he can't get through to his wife the importance of acting like a civil human being out in public, then how can he be president? DOH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_of_manhattan Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 Let's explain this just one more time. Guardsman cannot be AWOL. AWOL is defined as "Absent WithOut Leave." Guardsman DO NOT accrue leave. Ergo, there is no way for a Guardsman to be AWOL. You people who know !@#$ all about the military should shut your mouths. George Bush may very well have been a horrible guardsman, but that was for his superiors at the time to handle. Obviously, they didn't or he wasn't. Either way, this issue is moot TODAY and repeating the same bull stevestojan over and over is retarded. 5849[/snapback] My point exactly - the whole thing should be dropped - there is enough to nail GWB on over the last few years - no need to dig into his shallow past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.