Hope he runs again to get beat down...

Kerry, again.

Off running his mouth.

Wow, now it's Bush's fault that Kerry can't properly articulate his ideas.

I would be interested in finding out if Kerry has any policies, or even stands for anything, other than complaining about Bush.

While I'm not a Republican, I must admit that the entire platform for the Democratic Party (on a national level), has been nothing but whine, b1tch and moan while offering no suggestions as to what you're going to do to fix the problems.

If the public exposure of a Presidential campaign didn't get his thoughts across, what will?

Saw a piece on the news last night where Sen. Bob Menendez from N.J.,Running on the "Lets just pull the hell out of Iraq" platform visited a very large group of Korean & Vietnam war vets, expecting their full backing...Well that lil' trick backfired.

The general concensus was "Yea Lets just pull out & leave the Iraqi's high & dry just like we did in Nam & Korea" and have all American lives lost mean absolutely nothing. One Guy even said he would have gladly done another 2 tours in Nam if it meant that the white house would have at least tried for a victory...Then one of Menendez's aid's chimes in "And what rank were you sir? Captain,Major maybe?" Reply, No sir, Lance Cpl or PFC...Depends on what week it was I bounced back & forth so many times". 8)

Brilliant comeback.

http://www.drudgereport.com/

The source of good, unbiased info. I check CNN and Foxnews, but I refer to Drudge for the good stuff.

I am also reading that Bush had better grades in college than Kerry did. SOOO, whats that say about Kerry?

john kerry is a focktard.

She obviously caught sight of my filthy co[b][/b]ck.

That would definitely be enough incentive for a 360 or 720 turn of the head trick.

What can I say? I'm all for working for your own benefit and doing your life right to benefit.
I'm not for the Dem's way of letting those work and take from them to share with people who don't want to work.

That I don't care about.

What I care about is working for my money and having it taken away to be given to some person who didn't want to go to school and learn something. Someone who wants to sit at home watching tv, or popping out kids instead of working. Living off the system.

That's the dems.. tax and give to the poor. Always works well..

But look at it right now, 5 year low in unemployment because of tax cuts, so now we have more people making money, and being taxed.

Its like running a restaurant. You can have 10 patrons paying $100 a plate to make $1,000, or you can have 100 patrons paying $10 to make $1,000.
More people working means more taxes are being generated, everyone pays less because more people are working. Less people working means taxes go up.

I don't vote across the board, but in this case I believe its the better choice.

I want Ohio to stay with the big R. Plus, all the cities in Ohio are basically Republican leaning except where I live. Our city has been in decline for 50 years because its been controlled by the Dems. Columbus, Cinci, Dayton, Cleveland, are all holding their own, Cleveland not as much as its back and forth with Dems..

But my city needs to go R so we get an economy back here. We have people sitting outside the fricking local Newspaper company asking people to boycott them.

Seriously THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER. Why? They're pro Dems and coming up with crazy stuff agains the Repubs.

The city really needs to get away from the old style thinking of voting Dem constantly because grandpappy did. The city needs to change direction for a few elections.

Republicans have controlled ohio for quite some time... and OUR unemployment rates are obscene all the damn time. We're the 9th highest in the country at present.

bls.gov information on unemployment for Ohio. IMO opinion when you change presidents you can discount the first two years as the last president's crap... both good and bad, but thats just my opinion. There is a time lag for economic policies to take place when change has occurred.

June 2006 - 5.1%
June 2005 - 6.0%
June 2004 - 6.1% - Bush Re-Elected
June 2003 - 6.3%
June 2002 - 5.5%
June 2001 - 4.2%
June 2000 - 4.1% - Bush Elected
June 1999 - 4.5%
June 1998 - 4.5%
June 1997 - 4.2%
June 1996 - 4.2% - Clinton Re-Elected
June 1995 - 4.8%
June 1994 - 5.5%
Dece 1993 - 6.2% (Only available date)
June 1992 - 7.0% - Clinton Elected (Pulled from other data source- none on bls.gov)

Statistics based on above facts:

Clinton Started Office - 7.0%
Bush Started Office - 4.1%

Clinton Ended Office - 4.5%
Bush Ended To Date - 5.1%

Clinton Chage - (-2.5)%
Bush Change - 1.0% (to date)

I know PERSONALLY I *never* had problems finding jobs while Clinton was in office, I've been unemployed for almost a year now (no i didn't collect unemployment thanx, I plan for the unexpected.) The contracting company I normally go through say the economy is picking up again and I can expect a job shortly, but said in the past 4 years its been utter shit otherwise.

The truth is crazier than fiction. Both sides are ludacris assholes.

You know, I say just about the same thing for my cities... both canton and Louisville. Too many people vote exactly what their parents do without ever thinking of where they really stand on the issue or what will really benefit society and themselves the most. That goes for both sides- Republican and Democrat.

I'm neither party, I'm in a political party known as "At least give me reach-around you assholes, and vasaline would be nice."

Honest truth where I fall politically would be somewhere between conservative and libertarian. I'm very big on personal rights and responsibilities... people have a right to do with their life what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, when it does infringe, it's societies place to deal with it.

Anti Gun Control (Traditionally a republican issue)

Pro-Choice (Traditionally a democrat issue)

Smaller Government (Traditionally a republican issue but its went to the wind... neither party is really for smaller government anymore. They both suck us dry and spend the money in different ways... shrug.)

Pro-Privacy (both sides are ROYALLY fucking this up. Neither party.)

Anti Prostitution Restrictions (Make it legal and cut out the truly destructive parts. eg: Pimps, beatings, rapes, exploitation, unsafe sex, regulate it a bit, etc. Neither party.)

Anti Drug Restrictions (Make it legal and cut out the destructive parts. eg: Gangs, mafia, smuggling, selling to Kids on street, work place discrimination for what you do in your off-time, etc. Neither party.)

Anti Euthanasia Restrictions (If you pass a mental health check and are terminal, I don't see an issue. Neither party.)

Pro-Repeal of Anti-Stem Cell Research Laws (Neither party really, democrat more-so though.)

Pro-Repeal of Anti-Cloning Research Laws (Neither party really.)

Shrug, I think both parties suck to high hell (low hell?). They're corrupt.

Unfortunately, in this case, you can't discount the first two years of Bush.

Why?

September 11th caused a hell of a lot of people to lose their jobs.
Enron case, a lot of companies tumbled. Remember, "cooking the books." How many companies came out with large problems?

Plus, several Airlines had their problems from the aftermath of 9/11. Airlines employ a lot of people.

Katrina? NO being a large business conference center, employing a large amount of people.

How many Historical factors have played on this Administration, yet the economy is holding strong considering.

Where would the economy be without 9/11, Enron, or Katrina? Its hard to say, but all 3 of those factors were a huge negative effect.

In my opinion, the economy is doing great.

Yeah, domestic auto sales are going down.. but hell, you can't buy a domestive vehicle that the general population wants for $20k anymore. You can go buy a Civic for what, $14,000 brand new?

But hey, lets increase minimum wage and jump up the cost of everything else.

Look a step further though and see what's being done.

Yes, the Dems will raise Minimum Wage. They're also going to raise your taxes. From what is being said, it will cost the average tax payer (not sure what the average tax payer was in this case, I assume middle class)a couple thousand a year. 2-3k a year in additional taxes.

How does this effect the restaurant industry? Minimum right now is 2.15 around here. So they're going to get what? $4 now? Meaning everything will go up to compensate.. regardless, that isn't my point.

The dems want to raise minimum wage and raise taxes. So, you're paying more in taxes and getting paid more, which keeps you about the same place, but businesses take the hit because now they have higher taxes and have to pay their employees even more, most likely raising their taxes and patrons having to pay a little more extra.

Now, the republicans want to keep minimum wage the same and keep the tax cuts in place. The tax cuts keep extra cash in everyone's pocket, meaning minimum wage doesn't need raised.

The Dems are pushing to raise minimum wage to get that vote. Raise that, generates extra taxes because they're going to turn around and tax you on your extra money. But that's only on a small group that are getting the extra money.

Everyone else ends up paying more and having less money to spend. The 99 out of 100 will now have less money because they're getting taxed more, but the minimum wage person might have a few extra dollars in that pay check.

Take a look at yourself for an example.

Raise taxes on your paycheck 5%. Right now, I pay out about 27% of my paycheck. Very basic. Add 5% in additional taxes.

That's 99 additional people getting taxes more, 1 person making $84 additional working 40/hr a week at $7.25. $84 more over $5.15.

$5.15 x 40 = $206
$7.25 x 40 = $290
$168 additional a month in their pocket.

I'll probably end up paying that out in taxes.

¶These taxpayers, whose average income was $26 million, paid about the same share of their income in income taxes as those making $200,000 to $500,000 because of the lowered rates on investment income.

- tax cuts

the poor should pay less tax than the rich imo.

the taxes need to be raised riser. the country is broke. trillions in debt.

I really hope the dems don't run Hillary. that will give another 4 years to the republicans. both parties suck.

i think im going to move to mexico.

That's just it. $5.15 is an introductory rate given to people who have never had a job. It was never intended for someone to live on. Its for high school kids and college students. Generally the hours suck, are limited, or they're extremely flexible. People making $5.15 are supposed to be unskilled laborers.

Walmart and Meijer are in my area. The area was picked to create jobs for the "kids" but instead, you have people who work there because they're old and bored, or need a little extra cash because they're out living their life expectancy at the time of their retirement.

No, I wouldn't want to live on. Which is why I assumed debt, worked a job at $6/hr whenever I was needed. Also worked a shitty cell center job and kept getting pay increases as turn over was high.
Got another job making $11.50/hr, originally slated to work 16 hours on the weekend but I cut it down to 2 hours, taught them how to do their job and quit. I was 18.

Again, it was never meant for people to live off. It was meant for people to get started. There is a reason why you can start working at age 15 1/2 have in America. There is a reason you can get student loans.

For $6,000 you can get a 2 year degree in my area and easily make $12-$15/hr off that.

Thank you for answering my question.

Raising the wage won't solve any problems though. They'll have a couple more dollars in their pocket. If higher education isn't sought at $5.15, why would they when they get $7.25 for doing the same job?

I see no results in 'rewarding' that behavior.

PWNT!!!!!!

Nuf said!!!!!

I see, thanks for explaining.


What I would like to see is just 1 good candidate. It doesn't matter which party, just one guy that has both A) intelligence B) Good intentions

tough to find in a polition

Except fo one thing, he's way too old...... [shrug]

Sorry but, he's a hell of a lot older than I am...... Nam went on for a few decades..... I was there in 69 / 70..... He was there a lot earlier & stayed a lot longer thanI did..... [shrug]

He could do at least one term. He would be younger than Reagan in his second term.