getting re-elected for what the majority of people think is a job well done, we have read the same old crapolla here. You leave me no choice but to sit back and GLOAT! GET OVER IT!
http://www.marshallart.com/fun/Smiley.jpeg

Bush's approval rating is below 50% and he was elected with a majority of people thinking he's doing a good job? If you have anything to gloat about, it's the fact that the Democratic candidate was even more unpopular than Bush. Doesn't that just make your teeny-tiny heart warm with pride?

Those polls are conducted by the same people who projected Kerry the winner. I think I will ignore polls from now on :)

Gloat away. That doesn't change the fact that we're headed towards bankruptcy, we're insecure, we're hated by most of the world, we're becoming less competitive in the global marketplace, we have young men and women dying for no good reason (or, at least, every good reason has turned out to be Cheney's wet dream), we're poorer, we're sicker AND a significant number of those affected are so easily manipulated that they couldn't even vote for the side that cared even a little bit about them.

If that makes you feel good, and I believe it does, gloat away.


getting re-elected for what the majority of people think is a job well done, we have read the same old crapolla here. You leave me no choice but to sit back and GLOAT! GET OVER IT!
http://www.marshallart.com/fun/Smiley.jpeg

PP take a breath. The country is not headed for bankrupsy. More people than ever are living a better lifestyle and own homes than at any time in history. There are more new millionaires than ever and are occuring at a greater frequency and faster pace than ever. That must mean we are prospering and people have more opportunities than ever. A greater PERCENTAGE of minorities than ever own homes, have higher education and live a better lifestyle than ever.

The World does not hate us. Just a few meaningless people do. This is still the strongest and largest economy in the World. You sound like Chicken Little. The sky is not falling.

More people own homes because there are more people. Every year since its inception the statistic has shown growth. It's meaningless.

More millionaires does not do the vast majority who make up this country any good. Neither do low paying jobs or no health insurance. You show me an increase in home ownership and I'll show you an increase in foreclosures. People are simply living beyond their means. Way beyond. And when they hit a bump in the road, they lose it all because the safety net is being taken away.

As others have mentioned, if China decides that they don't want to fund our debt, we're in deep sh!t. The deepest. And this government is only pushing us further out on the limb by driving up debt. Furthermore, I haven't heard one Republican respond to the fact that Bush, who supposedly is the only person capable of leading us to a safer world, failed to implement the very technology that would have made us truly safe from a nuclear disaster. Why is that ignored? Why is a tax refund cause for rejoicing when, in fact, it crosses the line of criminal irresponsibility?

You and I are in the blast zone, steam. Except for D.C., there's no greater prize for a terrorist than to take out NYC. And since Bush has shown no pressing need to ensure my safety or yours, can't you understand why I'd feel so desperate to get rid of him?


PP take a breath. The country is not headed for bankrupsy. More people than ever are living a better lifestyle and own homes than at any time in history. There are more new millionaires than ever and are occuring at a greater frequency and faster pace than ever. That must mean we are prospering and people have more opportunities than ever. A greater PERCENTAGE of minorities than ever own homes, have higher education and live a better lifestyle than ever.

The World does not hate us. Just a few meaningless people do. This is still the strongest and largest economy in the World. You sound like Chicken Little. The sky is not falling.

Don't you Dems understand English. A greater PERCENTAGE of people own homes. Who should be responsible for people's irresponsibility? And what safety net are you talking about?

We are not. We live in a blue state now. UBL said he would only attack red states. That was tongue in cheek I hope you know. We have been living in the blast zone, as you put it, since the 50s. So what's new?

Hey here are some facts about the poor in America. They live lives similar to upper middle class in most other countries.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
<LI class=Bulleted>Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. <LI class=Bulleted>Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. <LI class=Bulleted>Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. <LI class=Bulleted>The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) <LI class=Bulleted>Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. <LI class=Bulleted>Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. <LI class=Bulleted>Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

We've had our fun with you the last couple days. You may commence "gloating" now that the smoke has cleared and you have been thoroughly jerked all over this board by your peevish little ego.

What's new is the desire by extremists to hit us, the availability of nuclear material on the black market and the technology, which this president hasn't implemented, to disrupt an attack. Since 9/11 supposedly changed everything, don't you find it disingenuous and more than a little reckless that the "security" president is leaving us with our pants down? Should, god forbid, we get hit with a nuclear bomb, would you assign any blame to Bush or would you still try to pin it on Clinton or homosexuals?

As for your statistics, I will not disagree that this is a great country, loaded with opportunities, full of affluent and not so affluent people. But there are so many millions who are struggling I consider it immoral to focus primarily on the top ten percent.

We have been living in the blast zone, as you put it, since the 50s. So what's new?

I think the statistics show that the bottom ten percent are not doing that bad on a global scale.

The terrorist threat issue is and will always be there. However we can assume at least anecdotally that Bush has protected us from another attack.

You didn't answer the question about the safety net and who is responsible for the irresponsibility of people who over extend themselves. Why?

Again, thanks for the laugh :)

Don't you Dems understand English. A greater PERCENTAGE of people own homes. Who should be responsible for people's irresponsibility? And what safety net are you talking about?

We are not. We live in a blue state now. UBL said he would only attack red states. That was tongue in cheek I hope you know. We have been living in the blast zone, as you put it, since the 50s. So what's new?

Hey here are some facts about the poor in America. They live lives similar to upper middle class in most other countries.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
<LI class=Bulleted>Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. <LI class=Bulleted>Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. <LI class=Bulleted>Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. <LI class=Bulleted>The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) <LI class=Bulleted>Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. <LI class=Bulleted>Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. <LI class=Bulleted>Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

I qualify as poor. Cool.

Those polls are conducted by the same people who projected Kerry the winner. I think I will ignore polls from now on :)

Just like how the right has ignored every other failure of Bush's:

Failed War in Iraq

Failed foreign policy

Failed domestic policy

FAILURE after FAILURE after FAILURE!

"But at least you know where he stands..." This is the comment I get for a reason people vote for him. Just utter stupidity!

getting re-elected for what the majority of people think is a job well done, we have read the same old crapolla here. You leave me no choice but to sit back and GLOAT! GET OVER IT!
http://www.marshallart.com/fun/Smiley.jpeg

So, I'll save this cute little picture for when Bush creates another huge mess, and we'll pull it out for analysis at that time...

I think the statistics show that the bottom ten percent are not doing that bad on a global scale.

The terrorist threat issue is and will always be there. However we can assume at least anecdotally that Bush has protected us from another attack.

You didn't answer the question about the safety net and who is responsible for the irresponsibility of people who over extend themselves. Why?



Do you live at the bottom ten percent?

So, "irresponsibility" is the reason 1.3 million more poor people joined the ranks as poor under this Bush administration's watch? You sound like the typical right-wing nutjob. "The poor are poor because they choose to be poor." Highest rate of bankruptcies ever... Bush is the first president to have a net job loss since the Great Depression... 5,000,000 more Americans without healthcare... $7 trillion deficit, and growing...

The policies of this administration, self-labeled "conservative," have little to do with the essence of tradition. Rather, they centralize power in the hands of the government under the guise of patriotism. If nothing else, the Bush administration has thrown into question what being a conservative in America actually means.

Now, without invoking how Bush failed this country on 911, please try to explain why he deserved to be re-elected.

Most Americans owe massive quantities of dollars for our homes, cars, and goodies rather than owning any of them outright.

"But at least you know where he stands..." This is the comment I get for a reason people vote for him. Just utter stupidity!

Hey, be nice. We can eat pie with GWB. How good is that?! Better than those smarty-pants types like Kerry.

Please try to follow the thread before you resort to name calling. PP said that there will be foreclosures because of people taking on too much debt. I just asked whose fault is that? Is it Bush's fault? You seem to believe that he is responsible for the bankruptcies. Please explain how. You make assertions that the war in Iraq failed as well as Bush's other policies. Please explain how you judge success and failure and what time period you give to allow for it.

Moral values... as in anti-abortion and anti-gay won the day in the end. To think the majority don't care about healthcare as a moral issue, or invading a country under false pretenses simply baffles me.

Frankly, I'm OK with Bush having four more years to fix this god-awful mess he created- with republican majorities in both houses so people like you can't blame the dems for standing in the way.

Next, we'll invade Iran. With god whispering in George's ear, we'll all be much safer. Funny how we don't care for the "clerical regime" in Iran when we have one of our own.

Hey, be nice. We can eat pie with GWB. How good is that?! Better than those smarty-pants types like Kerry.

I'd sooner throw it at him than eat it with him, and I'm a registered Republican.

I'll answer your questions if you'll answer mine.

"I think the statistics show that the bottom ten percent are not doing that bad on a global scale."

Since when do you care about a global scale? America, the greatest country in the world, and the best you can say is that the people at the bottom here aren't lying in the sand with flies on them and vultures standing by waiting for them to die? I thought America was supposed to be better than that by default.

The safety net I refer to is the knowledge that if one tries and fails, or gets hit with really bad luck, terrible illness, whatever, their country will take care of them until they can get back on their feet. For some people, that means a few months or years. For others, that may mean forever. It is so easy for the haves to say, "You have to be responsible for the choices you make." Well, yeah. But the haves have much farther to fall before they hit the ground, and most never will because their fortunate families won't let them. That is a good thing. But the risks the poor must take to get out of poverty are harder to take because they are living on the edge. One slip and they've hit the ground. I'd like the country to provide a softer landing. And if a few take unfair advantage, it's better than having no suitable net at all.

Bush is committed to eliminating that net. If everyone came into life in the same circumstances, meaning no help from their fortunate family, it would be truly equal and the deserving would rise to the top. Since that's not realistic, or even desirable, can we not agree that the insanely wealthy (and on a global scale, even our lower middle class fit that description) have a duty to help their less fortunate countrymen? Isn't that what Jesus taught? Do we not all benefit by helping the least among us?

The Protestant belief is that wealth is bestowed by God, that if you're poor, you are not in God's grace. So, it's no wonder that religious conservatives have contempt for all but the wealthiest among them. It's a terrible way to rule a country.

I find it somewhat amusing that you pull out a statistic, showing greater home ownership, that suggests a growing prosperity while at the same time glossing over the fact that the reason for that increase is personal irresponsibility. If people were more responsible and lived within their means, there wouldn't be the glowing housing reports you site. So, you praise their irresponsibility when it serves your purpose, then you criticize the behavior when it doesn't.

I do agree that the buck should stop with the individual. But many people aren't taught how to act responsibly, and not just by their parents. Whole industries exist to loan money to the irresponsible on the premise that they will default. Is that moral? Is it right? Or is it taking advantage of people who were taught poorly at home and school to understand the risks of an undertaking? Caveat Emptor? No, it's just too easy for the wolf to fleece the lamb or, as Jacques Casanova used to say, "Like seducing a girl fresh from the convent." It's unfair.

"The terrorist threat issue is and will always be there. However we can assume at least anecdotally that Bush has protected us from another attack."

Anecdotally, we can assume Clinton protected us since there weren't any attacks on US soil except at the beginning of his tenure. What a specious argument.

So, will you answer my questions: How can you support a president who declared that 9/11 changed everything and claimed that protecting us from terrorism is his top priority but has not installed the very technology that would accomplish that? Since this administration has admitted that a nuclear detonation on US soil is a very real possibility, how do you square the actions with the rhetoric? Unlike the majority of Americans, is terrorism not a concern to you?

There are so many errors here I don't know where to start. I disagree that Bush is trying to eliminate any safety net you believe exists. We still have unemployment insurance which he has extended in times that have warranted it. He has initiated programs that help get money and services to the people in communities who really need them. He has made the school system accountable for education our children.

How did I gloss over the idea that it is peoples own personal irresponsibility that they may have overextended themselves by purchasing a home? That is your argument. However there are some who may have done just that. I want you to explain how the government is responsible for that situation. You make a judgment about people you don't anything about. Who are you to say they shouldn't buy a home?

To remind you, we were attacked on numerous occasions while Clinton was in office. The first WTC bombing wasn't the only instance of American interests being the target of terrorism. It was one of many. Bush and the government have been instituting measures to protect the population from acts of terror. I think we will see more of the same.

I think we will see more of the same.


That's what I'm afraid of.

I knew one of you would come up with that. It was a setup :p

You still haven't answered my question, which is: how can you support a president who isn't doing everything possible to protect us?

Now I'll address yours. The ultimate safety net is good education. Give people the ability to think critically and their decisions will be better. Bush hasn't funded NCLB, so we can see what his commitment is to that. SS is about to be attacked and I fear for its survival. Private acounts are the best way to yank that safety net out from under us. The Great Depression was a wonderful teacher, but conservatives seem to have forgotton the lessons.

As for personal responsibility and the housing boom: Steam, the housing boom is stark evidence NOT of growing prosperity but, rather, growing irresponsibility. Who am I to say someone shouldn't buy a home? I'm the one who sees the futility in encouraging someone to invest their life into something they can't afford. Those people end up worse off because of it. A little compassion would go a long way to teaching people what they can and can't afford. The government should not allow sky high interest gouging. If lenders couldn't charge those outrageous rates, they wouldn't loan to people they knew couldn't afford the payments. Wouldn't fewer deperate people be a good thing even if they had to live in a smaller, cheaper home or put off buying for a few years?

Under Clinton we had terrorist attacks overseas but we escaped them for all of his later years on US soil. So, he must have been very successful in protecting us. Right? Of course not. 9/11 proved otherwise just as I fear a coming attack will have us, belatedly, scratching our heads wondering why Bush hasn't done everything possible to protect us. I really wonder why you're so accepting of his lack of action.


There are so many errors here I don't know where to start. I disagree that Bush is trying to eliminate any safety net you believe exists. We still have unemployment insurance which he has extended in times that have warranted it. He has initiated programs that help get money and services to the people in communities who really need them. He has made the school system accountable for education our children.

How did I gloss over the idea that it is peoples own personal irresponsibility that they may have overextended themselves by purchasing a home? That is your argument. However there are some who may have done just that. I want you to explain how the government is responsible for that situation. You make a judgment about people you don't anything about. Who are you to say they shouldn't buy a home?

To remind you, we were attacked on numerous occasions while Clinton was in office. The first WTC bombing wasn't the only instance of American interests being the target of terrorism. It was one of many. Bush and the government have been instituting measures to protect the population from acts of terror. I think we will see more of the same.

It's a matter of opinion. I think Bush is doing a fine job protecting us. I will always believe more can be done, but he has proven to be successful thus far. I would suspect that those who died in the Embassy bombings, the Oklahoma Federal Building and other places wouldn't agree with you on this.

The NCLB program is working. My wife is proof of that. He position in the New York Dept. of Ed. comes directly as a result of it. The position didn't exist prior. She is there helping kids with ADD and other learning and behavioral disorders. That is but one anecdotal example. The NCLB program is still being brought up to speed. Most school systems didn't have the understanding of how to implement it. They have to rethink a lot of old practices. The money the Dept. of Ed has allocated to their budget has more than doubled under Bush. I would say he is committed to seeing it work.

I am not sure I follow your argument on interest rates. Lenders are regulated by the state. What interest gouging are you talking about? Most every lender has requirements that borrowers must meet in order to qualify. Lenders are not in the business of foreclosure sales. They hate having to go through the process, yet people do default. People have always defaulted on mortgages. Again, how does one legislate who can and cannot buy a home?

Bush has not funded NCLB as he said he would. Why not? What's he waiting for?

Bush has not installed the only equipment that can detect nuclear material entering our country. Why not?

Remember when credit cards couldn't charge more than 24 or whatever percent? Now, lender can charge upwards of 40 percent. That should not be legal. Also, when defaults reach a certain percentage, the government should step in and see if the cause is irresponsible borrowers, unfair business practices or a bad economy. If there are too many irresponsible borrowers, they should be educated. If there are unfair, but legal, business practices, such as the astronomical interest rates charged by some institutions, the laws should be changed and the rates lowered. If that means that some people won't get a loan, I say that is right and just.

I have a friend whose son makes a boatload of money providing mortgages to high risk people. They gouge them. And they know that the people will default. Scrupulous lenders don't want a high rate of defaults, but unscrupulous lenders prey on those least likely to afford their obligations. If it just came down to informed people making stupid choices, I'd say let them sink or swim on their own. But many of these people are sold a bill of goods that they are ill equipped to understand because they received a terrible education that never prepared them for real life.

Liberals are at least as responsible for the sorry state of education in this country, what with feel good BS subjects that help no one. But we need to at the very least realize that many students really get no education at all, are functionally illiterate and just aren't able to compete no matter how hard they try. That needs to change.


It's a matter of opinion. I think Bush is doing a fine job protecting us. I will always believe more can be done, but he has proven to be successful thus far. I would suspect that those who died in the Embassy bombings, the Oklahoma Federal Building and other places wouldn't agree with you on this.

The NCLB program is working. My wife is proof of that. He position in the New York Dept. of Ed. comes directly as a result of it. The position didn't exist prior. She is there helping kids with ADD and other learning and behavioral disorders. That is but one anecdotal example. The NCLB program is still being brought up to speed. Most school systems didn't have the understanding of how to implement it. They have to rethink a lot of old practices. The money the Dept. of Ed has allocated to their budget has more than doubled under Bush. I would say he is committed to seeing it work.

I am not sure I follow your argument on interest rates. Lenders are regulated by the state. What interest gouging are you talking about? Most every lender has requirements that borrowers must meet in order to qualify. Lenders are not in the business of foreclosure sales. They hate having to go through the process, yet people do default. People have always defaulted on mortgages. Again, how does one legislate who can and cannot buy a home?

Please try to follow the thread before you resort to name calling. PP said that there will be foreclosures because of people taking on too much debt. I just asked whose fault is that? Is it Bush's fault? You seem to believe that he is responsible for the bankruptcies. Please explain how. You make assertions that the war in Iraq failed as well as Bush's other policies. Please explain how you judge success and failure and what time period you give to allow for it.



Steamy, you're delusional! You choose to ignore the reality of the failures of this president.

I also see you couldn't post ANY reasons why Bush should've been (re)elected.

[size=2]It's a matter of opinion. I think Bush is doing a fine job protecting us.

OK Steam, I'm just a few beers into the evening so I'll talk some about GW.

You say he was elected fair and square. This we might argue with based on the results in Ohio.

It has come about that there may be a reason for the 'Pub win there. If, as a repub govner you wanted to help your man win, it could be possible to throw up a blockade in voting districts that were known Dem. You could, as an example- set up low voting machine number in known Dem area. Geez, I ain't qoing to wait four to nine hours to vote. I have to get back to work. In the known 'Pub area voting is fast and easy.

This election may have been stolen. Simple as that. You won't agree. I know. Don't bother to argue on this point.

Here's another one: Apparently the GW sheep were misled. They thought he wanted more for the masses, Better this and that. They thought he had an interest in them.

He doesn't. Cheney neither.

I saw a beat up crap car with a Bush/Cheney sticker on it. This guy was misled. Bush/Cheney line their own pockets. They have no interest in the poor 'turd driving the beat up '82 Stang.

Why the Evang Christians and anybody else bought into this crap was pure propaganda. Propagated by Rove and all the slimey minions.

Open your eyes, if you have a shred of prescience and awareness you'll see this is a miserable turn of events, and lament GW and his lackeys.

Hey good buddy, I hope you read your post above when you have some coffee in you :p

Hey good buddy, I hope you read your post above when you have some coffee in you :p

yeeouch.

In the cold clear painful light of day, I'll admit the the thing about Ohio might seem a little far- fetched, tho not out of character for the 'Pubs ;-)

The rest of it still makes sense to me ;-), but I have to admit, I might not be better than 75% for a day or two...

Yeah I had a fun night of dining and drinking last evening too. It was great Asian food including sushi, Vietnames food with some Thai mixed in. Add in a few bottles of Nigori Sake and all was well. Man Brooklyn certainly has sprouted some fun eaterys these past few years.

Man you have to stop with all the conspiracy theories. You're starting to sound like AJS :p

Moral values... as in anti-abortion and anti-gay won the day in the end. To think the majority don't care about healthcare as a moral issue, or invading a country under false pretenses simply baffles me.

Frankly, I'm OK with Bush having four more years to fix this god-awful mess he created- with republican majorities in both houses so people like you can't blame the dems for standing in the way.

Next, we'll invade Iran. With god whispering in George's ear, we'll all be much safer. Funny how we don't care for the "clerical regime" in Iran when we have one of our own.
...where will the Right Wing Republican Jihad end?